From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1606 invoked by alias); 26 Feb 2015 11:51:50 -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 1596 invoked by uid 89); 26 Feb 2015 11:51:49 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.0 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 Feb 2015 11:51:48 +0000 Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t1QBpl8a025779 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Thu, 26 Feb 2015 06:51:47 -0500 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.11]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t1QBpkiu008002; Thu, 26 Feb 2015 06:51:46 -0500 Message-ID: <54EF08D1.4050703@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 11:51:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jan Kratochvil CC: Martin Sebor , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [patchv2] PR gdb/17968 - [ppc64] SEGV in ppc64_elf_get_synthetic_symtab reading a separate debug file References: <54E39F4C.6050607@redhat.com> <54E3D152.6020804@redhat.com> <20150225210404.GA29761@host1.jankratochvil.net> <54EF0476.7000605@redhat.com> <20150226114101.GA6813@host1.jankratochvil.net> In-Reply-To: <20150226114101.GA6813@host1.jankratochvil.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2015-02/txt/msg00751.txt.bz2 On 02/26/2015 11:41 AM, Jan Kratochvil wrote: > On Thu, 26 Feb 2015 12:33:10 +0100, Pedro Alves wrote: >> On 02/25/2015 09:04 PM, Jan Kratochvil wrote: >> >>> +# This test won't work properly if system debuginfo is installed. >>> +gdb_test_no_output "set debug-file-directory" "" >> >> I suspect this "" here would be for "no expected output", but >> given this is gdb_test_no_output, it actually means the test has >> no associated message. I think you want to remove that. > > I do not care if "" gets removed or not but it was intentional this way. > > (1) Some people prefer no gdb.sum line for testcases which really should never > FAIL and/or which are not a subject of the testfile. I am do not belong > between these people (if I care at all), though. > > (2) Here I used it as the only other testcase will be often UNTESTED (due to > no ppc64 target support compiled in) - and it looks better if there is > only one UNTESTED result than one PASS + one UNTESTED which may give > a false feeling something got tested - which it was not. > > >> Otherwise this (patch and test) looks good to me. > > So just if "" should be there or not. Fine with to me leave it, but please add the (2) comment above in the test then. Thanks, Pedro Alves