From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 41604 invoked by alias); 30 Oct 2015 10:36:36 -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 41590 invoked by uid 89); 30 Oct 2015 10:36:35 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_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; Fri, 30 Oct 2015 10:36:34 +0000 Received: from int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.26]) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 697248E259; Fri, 30 Oct 2015 10:36:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.11]) by int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t9UAaU7M032546; Fri, 30 Oct 2015 06:36:31 -0400 Message-ID: <5633482E.7030605@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2015 14:52:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: =?UTF-8?B?TWFyY2luIEtvxZtjaWVsbmlja2k=?= , qiyaoltc@gmail.com CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 01/13] gdb/linux-record: Add testcases for a few syscalls. References: <5628E5D6.5020706@0x04.net> <1445521166-14492-1-git-send-email-koriakin@0x04.net> <5632035E.30809@redhat.com> <56321188.1040903@0x04.net> In-Reply-To: <56321188.1040903@0x04.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-SW-Source: 2015-10/txt/msg00752.txt.bz2 On 10/29/2015 12:31 PM, Marcin Kościelnicki wrote: > On 29/10/15 12:30, Pedro Alves wrote: >> On 10/22/2015 02:39 PM, Marcin Kościelnicki wrote: >> I ran your tests against pristine/unfixed gdb, and linux-readv-reverse.exp >> passes cleanly. This is on x86_64. Is that expected? The comments in >> the test seem to suggest it would fail. > > That's expected. The test would only fail for x32 ABI, since it had the > wrong size_iov, size_pointer, size_size_t. Ah. >>> +#define _GNU_SOURCE >>> +#include >>> +#include >>> +#include >>> + >>> +void marker1 () >> >> We follow GNU formatting in tests too, unless there's a good >> reason not to. So, line break after void. Also, this is C, >> so write "(void)" for parameters. Thus: >> >> void >> marker1 (void) >> { > > OK. >> >>> +{ >>> +} >>> + >>> +void marker2 () >> >> Likewise. >> >>> +{ >>> +} >>> + >>> +struct stat buf; >>> + >>> +int main() { >> >> int >> main () >> { >> > Not int main(void)? Oh, yes, (void). Sorry, I only payed attention to the formatting and missed that. >> ... I think most of these tests could/should drop this target check, >> and drop the "linux-" in the filename as well. Any target/port >> that supports record/reverse execution should be able to run >> this, as long as it manages to compile the test program. And if the >> test program doesn't compile in such a port, it'll be automatically >> skipped. > > OK. So a testcase that doesn't compile is not a problem? Because I > just noticed the time test doesn't compile on platforms that don't have > a time syscall, like s390x... It just results in the test being marked UNTESTED. It's usually better to skip a test on targets that are known not to support something than the other way around. Like: if [istarget "*s390*"] then { ... return } Because otherwise, new ports (or when features are added to existing ports) end up not enabling the tests that might run there. Thanks, Pedro Alves