From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1952 invoked by alias); 19 Aug 2014 17:50:36 -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 1942 invoked by uid 89); 19 Aug 2014 17:50:35 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS 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; Tue, 19 Aug 2014 17:50:34 +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 s7JHoSpd029371 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 19 Aug 2014 13:50:29 -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 s7JHoQJE021050; Tue, 19 Aug 2014 13:50:27 -0400 Message-ID: <53F38E62.60403@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2014 17:50:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Doug Evans CC: gdb-patches Subject: Re: [RFC] delete gdb.cp/ambiguous.exp ? References: <53F38030.1020406@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2014-08/txt/msg00357.txt.bz2 On 08/19/2014 06:24 PM, Doug Evans wrote: >> Actually enabling the test (removing the skip, and adding >> nowarnings), we see that indeed GDB outputs no warning: > > But given the early exit the test itself is never run. As I said, I removed that. ;-) > And it's been this way since at least 2003 (commit 4d9eda44f), and > longer (that commit just changed the style of the gcc test)! Yeah, this probably came in in the big HP merge, much earlier than that. There was once a gdb.hp/ambiguous.exp, even, and this probably got copied from that. There was once a big everything-goes-we-dont-have-time-to-clean-things-up-before-accepting HP import/contribution, and bits may be skipped on GCC just because the HP folks at the time didn't want to deal with it in their local fork. > I'm all for filing a bug and recording the test in the bug report. > I'm even ok with keeping the test as is. > The high order bit for me is exploring what the community wishes be > done with this kind of "dead code". You're asking for a generic opinion, of the abstract "community", while I think "case by case" generally applies. ;-) My inclination for tests is to first check whether there's something salvageable. If someone wrote the test, it was probably important enough. If it's indeed "dead code", then of I'd go for just removing it. I looked, and it seemed to me that the test actually covers an aspect of printing that we don't cover elsewhere, and actually reveals a bug. So IMO, in this particular case, we should keep the test, remove the gcc check, modernize and KFAIL it , and then have the bug fixed (if people agree it's a bug). I'm of course not suggesting you do that all of yourself, but since you asked, that's what I'd prefer see done in this case. Thanks, Pedro Alves