From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19380 invoked by alias); 15 Aug 2012 13:58:14 -0000 Received: (qmail 19365 invoked by uid 22791); 15 Aug 2012 13:58:11 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 15 Aug 2012 13:57:56 +0000 Received: from int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q7FDvqto025084 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 15 Aug 2012 09:57:52 -0400 Received: from barimba (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q7FDvpHx004256 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 15 Aug 2012 09:57:52 -0400 From: Tom Tromey To: Yao Qi Cc: Subject: Re: RFC: consolidate checks for _Unwind_DebugHook in test suite References: <877gt1zbr5.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <502AF2C3.4090507@codesourcery.com> Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2012 13:58:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <502AF2C3.4090507@codesourcery.com> (Yao Qi's message of "Wed, 15 Aug 2012 08:52:19 +0800") Message-ID: <87boicxnog.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain 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 X-SW-Source: 2012-08/txt/msg00432.txt.bz2 Yao> Do we really need to put "pass" here? skip_* proc in lib/gdb.exp is Yao> to do some check and return a boolean value. We don't have to Yao> generate any PASS or FAIL during checking. I'd like to remove them. I would like that too, but you can't really use gdb_test_multiple without these, because it may emit fails on its own. I think that is a bad factoring -- there should be a way to interact with gdb without muddying affecting the test count. But right now there isn't. I wouldn't mind if someone changed this, but this patch is just a straightforward refactoring. Tom