From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28522 invoked by alias); 21 Dec 2015 17:53:33 -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 27729 invoked by uid 89); 21 Dec 2015 17:53:32 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy= X-HELO: mail-qg0-f54.google.com Received: from mail-qg0-f54.google.com (HELO mail-qg0-f54.google.com) (209.85.192.54) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-GCM-SHA256 encrypted) ESMTPS; Mon, 21 Dec 2015 17:53:30 +0000 Received: by mail-qg0-f54.google.com with SMTP id o11so36202865qge.2 for ; Mon, 21 Dec 2015 09:53:30 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.140.34.204 with SMTP id l70mr26246029qgl.7.1450720408741; Mon, 21 Dec 2015 09:53:28 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.55.159.151 with HTTP; Mon, 21 Dec 2015 09:52:59 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <567831CD.2090406@redhat.com> References: <1450567845-27030-1-git-send-email-simon.marchi@polymtl.ca> <1450567845-27030-3-git-send-email-simon.marchi@polymtl.ca> <5677F519.2010000@redhat.com> <567831CD.2090406@redhat.com> From: Simon Marchi Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2015 17:53:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] Remove HP-UX references fom testsuite To: Pedro Alves Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-SW-Source: 2015-12/txt/msg00449.txt.bz2 On 21 December 2015 at 12:07, Pedro Alves wrote: > On 12/21/2015 04:57 PM, Simon Marchi wrote: >> On 21 December 2015 at 07:48, Pedro Alves 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!