From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16238 invoked by alias); 26 Apr 2013 17:44:54 -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 16229 invoked by uid 89); 26 Apr 2013 17:44:54 -0000 X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-7.8 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; Fri, 26 Apr 2013 17:44:54 +0000 Received: from int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.25]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r3QHiqG7010692 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Fri, 26 Apr 2013 13:44:52 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.11]) by int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r3QHipia014821; Fri, 26 Apr 2013 13:44:51 -0400 Message-ID: <517ABD12.9020506@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2013 20:30:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130311 Thunderbird/17.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Keith Seitz CC: "gdb-patches@sourceware.org ml" Subject: Re: [RFA/testsuite] Cleanup pending breakpoints References: <517716B5.7050406@redhat.com> <5177EDAF.6030107@redhat.com> <517986D9.3060607@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <517986D9.3060607@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2013-04/txt/msg00819.txt.bz2 On 04/25/2013 08:41 PM, Keith Seitz wrote: > On 04/24/2013 07:35 AM, Pedro Alves wrote: > >>> 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, I agree, but... e.g., if allow-pending, ONLY pending breakpoint would produce a PASS. ...right, but then "allow" would be confusing. > 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. /me likes. > Or I can mutate allow-pending to this new pending and eliminate the ambiguity that allow-pending introduced. Not sure I understand the difference. You mean, retain the "allow-pending" spelling, but make it _require_ pending? I'd rather not, as it's confusing naming/API. If in the end, there's no use in the tree for an "allow-pending" option that allows pending but doesn't fail with a regular non-pending breakpoint, in addition to a new "pending" option that _requires_ pending, then I'd rather eliminate "allow-pending". > What would you prefer? Thanks, -- Pedro Alves