From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-113834-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 9587 invoked by alias); 26 Jun 2014 13:19:54 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb-patches.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org
Received: (qmail 9574 invoked by uid 89); 26 Jun 2014 13:19:52 -0000
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Found: No
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2
X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com
Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Thu, 26 Jun 2014 13:19:47 +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 s5QDJj3f012418	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK);	Thu, 26 Jun 2014 09:19:45 -0400
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.11])	by int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s5QDJhXf005505;	Thu, 26 Jun 2014 09:19:44 -0400
Message-ID: <53AC1DEF.2010907@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2014 13:19:00 -0000
From: Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Yao Qi <yao@codesourcery.com>, gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Associate dummy_frame with ptid
References: <1403775882-1311-1-git-send-email-yao@codesourcery.com>
In-Reply-To: <1403775882-1311-1-git-send-email-yao@codesourcery.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SW-Source: 2014-06/txt/msg00906.txt.bz2

Hi Yao,

Thanks for tackling this.

On 06/26/2014 10:44 AM, Yao Qi wrote:

> +if {[prepare_for_testing $testfile.exp $testfile $srcfile {nowarnings debug}]} {

Any reason for "nowarnings" ?  It just sounds like copy/paste, as the test
has no dependencies/includes, even.

> +    return -1
> +}
> +
> +# Inferior 1 stops at f1.
> +
> +if ![runto f1] then {
> +    fail "Can't run to f1"
> +    return 0
> +}
> +
> +gdb_test "add-inferior -exec ${binfile}" \
> +    "Added inferior 2.*" \
> +    "add inferior 2 with -exec ${executable}"
> +gdb_test "inferior 2" "witching to inferior 2 .*" ""

Lots of tests in this file are silent.  Any reason for that?

> +gdb_test "run" "Breakpoint.* f1 .*" "start to f1 inferior 2"
> +gdb_breakpoint f2
> +# Inferior 2 stops at f2.
> +gdb_continue_to_breakpoint f2

Isn't this the same as just "runto f2" ?

> +
> +gdb_breakpoint commonfun
> +
> +# Check the stack bactrace in inferior INF.

This doesn't document MSG, which I'd assume to be the
test message.  But, it's actually used as message prefix.
So it seems the parameter is misnamed.

> +
> +proc check_bt { inf msg } {
> +    with_test_prefix "$msg" {
> +	gdb_test "bt 1" "#0  f$inf .*" "bt in inferior $inf"
> +    }
> +}
> +

Otherwise looks good to me.

-- 
Pedro Alves