Re: [PATCH 3/3] Remove HP-UX references fom testsuite

[Simon Marchi <simon.marchi@polymtl.ca>]

On 21 December 2015 at 12:07, Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 12/21/2015 04:57 PM, Simon Marchi wrote:
>> On 21 December 2015 at 07:48, Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com> wrote:
>>> I looked this one over too.  A few minor comments below, but
>>> otherwise looks good to me.  Thanks for doing this!
>>>
>>> On 12/19/2015 11:30 PM, Simon Marchi wrote:
>>>
>>>>       * gdb.multi/bkpt-multi-exec.ex: Likewise.p
>>>
>>> Typo: "ex: Likewise.p" -> "exp: Likewise."
>>
>> Fixed.
>>
>>>> +gdb_test_multiple "catch vfork" "$name" {
>>>> +    -re "Catchpoint \[0-9\]* .vfork..*$gdb_prompt $" {
>>>> +     pass $name
>>>> +    }
>>>> +    -re "Catch of vfork not yet implemented.*$gdb_prompt $" {
>>>
>>> This case can be removed.  GDB doesn't ever output this.
>>
>> Actually, is it true for all "Catch of * not yet implemented" cases?
>>
>
> Yes.  I did a google search now for "Catch of fork not yet implemented"
> and found this:
>
>   https://www.sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2004-01/msg00679.html
>
>> testsuite/gdb.base/break.exp
>> 482:    -re "Catch of fork not yet implemented.*$gdb_prompt $" {
>> 493:    -re "Catch of vfork not yet implemented.*$gdb_prompt $" {
>> 503:    -re "Catch of exec not yet implemented.*$gdb_prompt $" {
>>
>> testsuite/gdb.base/sepdebug.exp
>> 291:    -re "Catch of fork not yet implemented.*$gdb_prompt $" {
>> 302:    -re "Catch of vfork events not supported on HP-UX 10.20.*" {
>> 308:    -re "Catch of vfork not yet implemented.*$gdb_prompt $" {
>> 318:    -re "Catch of exec not yet implemented.*$gdb_prompt $" {
>>
>> Oh damn, that just found another HP-UX reference.  I'll remove the
>> "Catch of vfork events not supported on HP-UX 10.20.*" as part of this
>> patch.
>>
>> Grepping for "Catch of" in the source doesn't return anything, so I
>> guess they could all be removed from the testsuite. If that is right,
>> I think I would do it in a separate patch.
>
> That'd be great!
>
>>
>> Another thing, the gdb.base/environ.exp is guarded by a
>>
>>  23 if ![istarget "hppa*-*-hpux*"] then {
>>  24   return
>>  25 }
>>
>> but it doesn't test hp-ux specific things.
>
> Right, that's old PR8595 - environ.exp could run on more platforms:
>   https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8595
>
>> It overlaps
>> gdb.base/testenv.exp in what it tests, but it does test a few more
>> things (like having an equal sign in the value when setting an env
>> var).  Removing the guard, it seems like the test runs fine on Linux
>> native.  It does not run fine with
>> native-gdbserver/native-extended-gdbserver, however.  So I could
>> replace it with the appropriate "if not remote" check.
>> gdb.base/testenv.exp uses "if { [is_remote target] }", but it's not
>> right, because it doesn't catch when running with
>> native-extended-gdbserver.
>
> Right.  I think most is_remote checks are wrong.  This is really
> a protocol limitation, a bit orthogonal to protocol used or whether
> the host and target machines are the same.   Probably the right
> check is:
>
>   [target_info gdb_protocol] == "remote" || [target_info gdb_protocol] == "extended-remote"
>
> Better yet, add a new supports_target_env or some such to lib/gdb.exp
> that encapsulates this.
>
>>
>> So for now I think I'll just leave it as-is, and we can merge the two
>> tests and clean this up after.
>>
>
> That's fine.  It waited over 12 years already, it can wait a
> little while longer.  :-)
>
> Thanks,
> Pedro Alves


Ok, I pushed this one in.  Thanks!