From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32657 invoked by alias); 21 Dec 2015 17:07:30 -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 30633 invoked by uid 89); 21 Dec 2015 17:07:28 -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,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=Hx-languages-length:3252, wwwsourcewareorg, www.sourceware.org, sk:wwwsou 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; Mon, 21 Dec 2015 17:07:27 +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 (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 920CB8F4EB; Mon, 21 Dec 2015 17:07:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id tBLH7PM2020446; Mon, 21 Dec 2015 12:07:25 -0500 Message-ID: <567831CD.2090406@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2015 17:07:00 -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: Simon Marchi CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] Remove HP-UX references fom testsuite References: <1450567845-27030-1-git-send-email-simon.marchi@polymtl.ca> <1450567845-27030-3-git-send-email-simon.marchi@polymtl.ca> <5677F519.2010000@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2015-12/txt/msg00442.txt.bz2 On 12/21/2015 04:57 PM, Simon Marchi wrote: > On 21 December 2015 at 07:48, Pedro Alves wrote: >> I looked this one over too. A few minor comments below, but >> otherwise looks good to me. Thanks for doing this! >> >> On 12/19/2015 11:30 PM, Simon Marchi wrote: >> >>> * gdb.multi/bkpt-multi-exec.ex: Likewise.p >> >> Typo: "ex: Likewise.p" -> "exp: Likewise." > > Fixed. > >>> +gdb_test_multiple "catch vfork" "$name" { >>> + -re "Catchpoint \[0-9\]* .vfork..*$gdb_prompt $" { >>> + pass $name >>> + } >>> + -re "Catch of vfork not yet implemented.*$gdb_prompt $" { >> >> This case can be removed. GDB doesn't ever output this. > > Actually, is it true for all "Catch of * not yet implemented" cases? > Yes. I did a google search now for "Catch of fork not yet implemented" and found this: https://www.sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2004-01/msg00679.html > testsuite/gdb.base/break.exp > 482: -re "Catch of fork not yet implemented.*$gdb_prompt $" { > 493: -re "Catch of vfork not yet implemented.*$gdb_prompt $" { > 503: -re "Catch of exec not yet implemented.*$gdb_prompt $" { > > testsuite/gdb.base/sepdebug.exp > 291: -re "Catch of fork not yet implemented.*$gdb_prompt $" { > 302: -re "Catch of vfork events not supported on HP-UX 10.20.*" { > 308: -re "Catch of vfork not yet implemented.*$gdb_prompt $" { > 318: -re "Catch of exec not yet implemented.*$gdb_prompt $" { > > Oh damn, that just found another HP-UX reference. I'll remove the > "Catch of vfork events not supported on HP-UX 10.20.*" as part of this > patch. > > Grepping for "Catch of" in the source doesn't return anything, so I > guess they could all be removed from the testsuite. If that is right, > I think I would do it in a separate patch. That'd be great! > > Another thing, the gdb.base/environ.exp is guarded by a > > 23 if ![istarget "hppa*-*-hpux*"] then { > 24 return > 25 } > > but it doesn't test hp-ux specific things. Right, that's old PR8595 - environ.exp could run on more platforms: https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8595 > It overlaps > gdb.base/testenv.exp in what it tests, but it does test a few more > things (like having an equal sign in the value when setting an env > var). Removing the guard, it seems like the test runs fine on Linux > native. It does not run fine with > native-gdbserver/native-extended-gdbserver, however. So I could > replace it with the appropriate "if not remote" check. > gdb.base/testenv.exp uses "if { [is_remote target] }", but it's not > right, because it doesn't catch when running with > native-extended-gdbserver. Right. I think most is_remote checks are wrong. This is really a protocol limitation, a bit orthogonal to protocol used or whether the host and target machines are the same. Probably the right check is: [target_info gdb_protocol] == "remote" || [target_info gdb_protocol] == "extended-remote" Better yet, add a new supports_target_env or some such to lib/gdb.exp that encapsulates this. > > So for now I think I'll just leave it as-is, and we can merge the two > tests and clean this up after. > That's fine. It waited over 12 years already, it can wait a little while longer. :-) Thanks, Pedro Alves