From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca by simark.ca with LMTP id ccfkEyNAb2F+DAAAWB0awg (envelope-from ) for ; Tue, 19 Oct 2021 18:01:07 -0400 Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id 3C7661F0BD; Tue, 19 Oct 2021 18:01:07 -0400 (EDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on simark.ca X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from sourceware.org (server2.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 929C41EDDB for ; Tue, 19 Oct 2021 18:01:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35E383857C5D for ; Tue, 19 Oct 2021 22:01:06 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 35E383857C5D DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org; s=default; t=1634680866; bh=SpraukcsqHBMxQkF9YXvPrdiVZGoqd2RQxoA4MQhgEM=; 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=k81CP2QJsQwzj/edUhsguwR3qZOaEwZlrrQ9CSeDwY76MMpcWJanbNV4yAAlg5rGM 7FdxFqbeOYMOBAOiVAfnzZiOJ6f4twhtnyN4uVkrg7++D3Vzvvy6VBVT6cs07QYc4G ubwbKvV0UiRRqKTOutfcJirkaN8b8T86ZIJ7fB+o= Received: from smtp-out2.suse.de (smtp-out2.suse.de [195.135.220.29]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8614E3858D39 for ; Tue, 19 Oct 2021 22:00:46 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 8614E3858D39 Received: from imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de [192.168.254.74]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-521) server-digest SHA512) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-out2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8EF071FD36; Tue, 19 Oct 2021 22:00:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de [192.168.254.74]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-521) server-digest SHA512) (No client certificate requested) by imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 72DD113B05; Tue, 19 Oct 2021 22:00:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dovecot-director2.suse.de ([192.168.254.65]) by imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de with ESMTPSA id WKg/Gg1Ab2EUDQAAMHmgww (envelope-from ); Tue, 19 Oct 2021 22:00:45 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH][gdb/testsuite] Reimplement gdb.gdb/python-interrupts.exp as unittest To: Tom Tromey , Tom de Vries via Gdb-patches References: <20210911120254.GA19083@delia.home> <87v91sx4ur.fsf@tromey.com> Message-ID: <8926b62a-0df2-9d09-0b82-14d495e65da9@suse.de> Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2021 00:00:45 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.12.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <87v91sx4ur.fsf@tromey.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: Tom de Vries via Gdb-patches Reply-To: Tom de Vries Errors-To: gdb-patches-bounces+public-inbox=simark.ca@sourceware.org Sender: "Gdb-patches" On 10/19/21 8:10 PM, Tom Tromey wrote: >>>>>> "Tom" == Tom de Vries via Gdb-patches writes: > >>> +#if GDB_SELF_TEST >>> + if (selftests::hook_set_active_ext_lang) >>> + selftests::hook_set_active_ext_lang (); >>> +#endif > > Tom> In particular, I'd like feedback on whether this is acceptable. > > Tom> F.i., I could do instead the less intrusive (but also less flexible): > > Either way is fine by me. It's clearly code just for testing purposes, > so, for me at least, I don't mind if it's too flexible or whatever. > Ack, I've left it as is. > Tom> Perhaps this could be handled using a > Tom> DEVEL_GDB_SELF_TEST, which is disabled in release branches independent > Tom> of --enable-unit-tests? > > I don't really understand what you meant by this. > Do you mean having some way to disable some subset of the self-tests? I mean having a class of unit tests that is not enabled in release branches, even with --enable-unit-tests, because they're considered too risky. > If so, I think it's fine to just have them all around. > Ack, thanks for confirming. - Tom