From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12139 invoked by alias); 26 Apr 2012 14:17:23 -0000 Received: (qmail 12123 invoked by uid 22791); 26 Apr 2012 14:17:21 -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; Thu, 26 Apr 2012 14:17:08 +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 q3QEH3Me032041 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 26 Apr 2012 10:17:03 -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 q3QEH1KH028553 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 26 Apr 2012 10:17:02 -0400 From: Tom Tromey To: Pedro Alves Cc: "Maciej W. Rozycki" , Daniel Jacobowitz , gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Richard Sandiford Subject: Re: gdb_test_multiple and empty $message References: <4F916F9E.6040209@redhat.com> <4F99491E.8050605@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 14:31:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <4F99491E.8050605@redhat.com> (Pedro Alves's message of "Thu, 26 Apr 2012 14:09:50 +0100") Message-ID: <87y5pi8tnm.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.95 (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: 2012-04/txt/msg00908.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Pedro" == Pedro Alves writes: Pedro> My impression gdb_test without a message string is used at places Pedro> we're sending some commands that just prepare the real test. Pedro> It's a bit arguable whether we should do that, but there you go. Pedro> But I think that hiding an internal fail in such preparation Pedro> steps, which are never ever expected to fail (otherwise you'd Pedro> pass down a message string to begin with) would be actively Pedro> harmful, and make it harder to grok and debug testsuite results. Yeah, I agree. I remember thinking sometimes that it would be nice to have something like gdb_test_multiple that just returns a status instead of also logging a pass/fail as a side effect. I can't remember my scenario now. Pedro> So I suggest just removing the dead empty string tests from Pedro> gdb_test_multiple, making the non-empty paths unconditional. Yes please. Tom