From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca by simark.ca with LMTP id UDt7Eh+DoWHHRgAAWB0awg (envelope-from ) for ; Fri, 26 Nov 2021 20:00:15 -0500 Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id 49A131ECEB; Fri, 26 Nov 2021 20:00:15 -0500 (EST) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on simark.ca X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A,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 CBB581ECEB for ; Fri, 26 Nov 2021 20:00:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27BCA3857C51 for ; Sat, 27 Nov 2021 01:00:14 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 27BCA3857C51 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org; s=default; t=1637974814; bh=lJQH90wugOVO8o4kVCiiEx1Q4CWX1JQt/njuC/i/Zq4=; h=Date:Subject:To:References:In-Reply-To:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe:From:Reply-To:Cc: From; b=PuTxtRSkGfEVVWsbXW1Fm8wjhxBMBArB1f92R2HGI8RPaKxvL3vzVEfyhWFR7PPyU 2ihgGFMcx+LFa/b7joMSue8SZsUzmSTdLBPg5dAPuwQVnmeS/sGTZOrlU7tTNChyU0 MjXI/MEw7IPXznuBwsTdSnqMGWRw/VXzF3vdIxk0= Received: from smtp.polymtl.ca (smtp.polymtl.ca [132.207.4.11]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2EEE93858D39 for ; Sat, 27 Nov 2021 00:59:56 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 2EEE93858D39 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 1AR0xnD1010723 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 26 Nov 2021 19:59:54 -0500 DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp.polymtl.ca 1AR0xnD1010723 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) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4CEC01ECEB; Fri, 26 Nov 2021 19:59:49 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <6b55cdda-832d-1db3-8291-17f2c004434a@polymtl.ca> Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2021 19:59:48 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.3.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH] [gdb/testsuite] Add gdb.base/include-main.exp Content-Language: en-US To: Simon Marchi , Tom de Vries , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20211126094852.32283-1-tdevries@suse.de> <1e731166-3636-e537-b063-d4b1deb92645@suse.de> <26a88ace-dd10-4051-43e5-db9e4308dc1d@simark.ca> In-Reply-To: <26a88ace-dd10-4051-43e5-db9e4308dc1d@simark.ca> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Poly-FromMTA: (simark.ca [158.69.221.121]) at Sat, 27 Nov 2021 00:59:49 +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 Cc: Tom Tromey Errors-To: gdb-patches-bounces+public-inbox=simark.ca@sourceware.org Sender: "Gdb-patches" On 2021-11-26 13:47, Simon Marchi wrote: >>> I'm not a fan of having a file with the generic name "main.c" there. >> >> Could you explain why not? >> >> I don't understand why we'd need to duplicate a file that can easily be >> reused. It even helps one to recognize quickly (once you known the >> contents of the file) that the test-case that is being investigated does >> not require a specific executable, just based on the fact it uses "main.c". > > I usually don't like multiple test cases re-using the same source file, > that makes it more complicated to modify it (must make sure to not > change the behavior of the the other tests). But the case of an empty > program is simple enough, and your reasoning makes sense, so I'm ok with > that. > > Simon > I'm seeing these 2 failures starting from this commit: FAIL: gdb.base/list-missing-source.exp: list FAIL: gdb.base/list-missing-source.exp: info source Simon