From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24490 invoked by alias); 25 Apr 2013 19:41:17 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 24480 invoked by uid 89); 25 Apr 2013 19:41:16 -0000 X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-7.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_WL,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.84/v0.84-167-ge50287c) with ESMTP; Thu, 25 Apr 2013 19:41:16 +0000 Received: from int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r3PJfFsC012113 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Thu, 25 Apr 2013 15:41:15 -0400 Received: from valrhona.uglyboxes.com (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r3PJfDMP001599 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 25 Apr 2013 15:41:14 -0400 Message-ID: <517986D9.3060607@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2013 11:37:00 -0000 From: Keith Seitz User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130402 Thunderbird/17.0.5 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Pedro Alves CC: "gdb-patches@sourceware.org ml" Subject: Re: [RFA/testsuite] Cleanup pending breakpoints References: <517716B5.7050406@redhat.com> <5177EDAF.6030107@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <5177EDAF.6030107@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2013-04/txt/msg00796.txt.bz2 On 04/24/2013 07:35 AM, Pedro Alves wrote: > Whenever you feel compelled to say "also" in a patch description, > consider splitting the patch in two. ;-) Updating the documentation > part could go first, and would be clearly an improvement. Extending > the interface could go afterwards, and that patch would then actually > be clearer. I now feel compelled to submit them separately. :-) >> Comments/questions? > > I wonder whether "allow-pending" is the right option for the "pending" tests. > As in, "allow" != "require". I wonder whether we're losing test > coverage in those cases? Well, yes and no. From reading through all the tests, I think the "allow-pending" option is a bit underdefined/underterministic. Many of the tests that use it pretty much would fail miserably if a real breakpoint was set instead, yet "allow-pending" doesn't fail if this happens. IMO gdb_breakpoint should set what was requested or FAIL, e.g., if allow-pending, ONLY pending breakpoint would produce a PASS. Nonetheless, since we have it already, I have patches now which add a "pending" option to gdb_breakpoint, meaning that it *must* set a pending breakpoint. Anything else will FAIL. Or I can mutate allow-pending to this new pending and eliminate the ambiguity that allow-pending introduced. What would you prefer? Keith