From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca by simark.ca with LMTP id +YC7NwGWnmCiHwAAWB0awg (envelope-from ) for ; Fri, 14 May 2021 11:23:45 -0400 Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id D5A0F1F11C; Fri, 14 May 2021 11:23:45 -0400 (EDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on simark.ca X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.7 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RDNS_DYNAMIC,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from sourceware.org (ip-8-43-85-97.sourceware.org [8.43.85.97]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3B8001E783 for ; Fri, 14 May 2021 11:23:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B628D393F843; Fri, 14 May 2021 15:23:44 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org B628D393F843 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org; s=default; t=1621005824; bh=uIeks6vyaHIvaY1mliwL20tQyq2w5KpmnTEkrT7/V0c=; h=Subject:To:References:Date:In-Reply-To:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe:From:Reply-To: From; b=KgDnkptF90FPj4mBGElgMOIWBY+G7B8gsgNYDTGdAKS4QToTJC0PvV1x1gEIbblud O4zj4YJs5zcvQPnRQ/ibza0Ty8If3b0fN+/LZu1BQLOjKlqsIwy9uBM1EBiK455krg fco6eBsEjIr2yXNpWj5BqpmeF86h0ks4YDwUPuTM= Received: from smtp.polymtl.ca (smtp.polymtl.ca [132.207.4.11]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 298ED3851C07 for ; Fri, 14 May 2021 15:23:42 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org 298ED3851C07 Received: from simark.ca (simark.ca [158.69.221.121]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp.polymtl.ca (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id 14EFNWDf019963 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 14 May 2021 11:23:37 -0400 DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp.polymtl.ca 14EFNWDf019963 Received: from [10.0.0.11] (192-222-157-6.qc.cable.ebox.net [192.222.157.6]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BC0431E783; Fri, 14 May 2021 11:23:32 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: [PP?] [PATCH] testsuite: Cleanup some temp dirs with gdb-index files To: Bernd Edlinger , "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" References: <41e8702a-b0cb-57dd-efa2-4e059ec7c9d1@polymtl.ca> Message-ID: <67f531fa-9f90-e56a-8543-b8d6198bc33d@polymtl.ca> Date: Fri, 14 May 2021 11:23:32 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.10.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Poly-FromMTA: (simark.ca [158.69.221.121]) at Fri, 14 May 2021 15:23:32 +0000 X-BeenThere: gdb-patches@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , From: Simon Marchi via Gdb-patches Reply-To: Simon Marchi Errors-To: gdb-patches-bounces@sourceware.org Sender: "Gdb-patches" On 2021-05-14 11:03 a.m., Bernd Edlinger wrote: > On 5/14/21 3:26 PM, Simon Marchi wrote: >> On 2021-05-14 9:20 a.m., Bernd Edlinger wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> I'd like to cleanup some files/directories which >>> remain after the gdb testsute runs. >>> >>> I want to avoid using "rm -rf ..." since that can be dangerous. >>> Therefore I remove the *.gdb-index files, if any, and use >>> rmdir instead. I am not sure if there is a better way, >>> instead of using "remote_exec host sh -c" to do the globbing. >>> >>> Tested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu. >>> Is it OK for trunk? >>> >>> >>> gdb/testsuite: >>> 2021-05-14 Bernd Edlinger >>> >>> * gdb.base/index-cache.exp: Cleanup $cache_dir/*.gdb-index and >>> remove the directory. >>> * gdb.dwarf2/per-bfd-sharing.exp: Likewise. >>> >> >> LGTM, but I have one question: if the rm or rmdir ever fails (because >> there are additional files to delete, for example), would we know about >> it or would it silently fail? I think it would be nice if the error >> was noisy so we could fix it. >> > > Ah Yes, good point, that would be as silent as before. > > So, how about this new version? LGTM, but while at it let's check the return value of both commands. Simon