From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7326 invoked by alias); 20 Aug 2013 17:48:54 -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 7317 invoked by uid 89); 20 Aug 2013 17:48:54 -0000 X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-7.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_WL,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.84/v0.84-167-ge50287c) with ESMTP; Tue, 20 Aug 2013 17:48:53 +0000 Received: from int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.24]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r7KHmnmB031855 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 20 Aug 2013 13:48:49 -0400 Received: from barimba (ovpn-113-142.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.113.142]) by int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r7KHmlZo011337 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 20 Aug 2013 13:48:48 -0400 From: Tom Tromey To: Yao Qi Cc: Subject: Re: [RFC 2/2] Test entry values in trace frame References: <1376379586-24150-1-git-send-email-yao@codesourcery.com> <1376379586-24150-3-git-send-email-yao@codesourcery.com> Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2013 17:48:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <1376379586-24150-3-git-send-email-yao@codesourcery.com> (Yao Qi's message of "Tue, 13 Aug 2013 15:39:46 +0800") Message-ID: <87siy4gsn4.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-SW-Source: 2013-08/txt/msg00553.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Yao" == Yao Qi writes: Yao> I don't emit a fail for it because I am not very sure it is expected Yao> to be "unavailable". I am fine to kfail it. Yao> I looked into a little, and looks reading entry value doesn't use Yao> value availability-aware API. It is not an easy fix to me. I think on the whole I'd rather we not check in a test that fails. I know we already have tests like that, but what I've noticed is that these tests only ever seem to be fixed as a side effect of fixing something else. Otherwise the failures are just universally ignored. I suppose the best thing to do is to file a bug about this problem. Then you can attach this patch to the bug. What do you think? Tom