From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 103425 invoked by alias); 5 Jan 2017 16:13:30 -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 102787 invoked by uid 89); 5 Jan 2017 16:13:29 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_SOFTFAIL autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy=H*f:sk:d388c0e, H*i:sk:d388c0e X-HELO: simark.ca Received: from simark.ca (HELO simark.ca) (158.69.221.121) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Thu, 05 Jan 2017 16:13:27 +0000 Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 33) id A853E1E930; Thu, 5 Jan 2017 11:13:25 -0500 (EST) To: Luis Machado Subject: Re: [PATCH] D: Fix crash when expression debugging X-PHP-Originating-Script: 33:rcube.php MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Thu, 05 Jan 2017 16:13:00 -0000 From: Simon Marchi Cc: Iain Buclaw , GDB Patches In-Reply-To: References: <5806a075-dc30-b664-a834-a633b3b27256@codesourcery.com> Message-ID: X-Sender: simon.marchi@polymtl.ca User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.2.3 X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2017-01/txt/msg00078.txt.bz2 >>>>>> +if { [skip_d_tests] } { continue } >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> We should output a message: >>>>> >>>>> untested "skipping d language tests" >>>>> >>>>> It may be more reasonable to just return instead of continuing? The >>>>> effect >>>>> will probably be the same, but it is a bit confusing to read >>>>> "continue" >>>>> without a visible loop. >>>>> >>>> >>>> I did a quick grep, and it seems like everyone is skippingtests in >>>> this way except for gdb.ada and gdb.btrace which are doing { return >>>> -1 >>>> } >>>> >>>> >>> >>> That's a bit of a stretch. Take, for example, a few of the examples >>> in >>> gdb.base. You will see a number of them returning. >>> >>> The problem here is inheriting past confusing practices when we use >>> some >>> existing files to create new ones, which is not your fault really. >>> I'm >>> guilty myself. :-) >>> >> >> Yes indeed. I wasn't disagreeing, just questioning the two competing >> ways of returning. >> >> I will update to use return and push this in then if there's no >> disagreement. :-) >> > > Hopefully someone will chime in for a second opinion. :-) +1 :)