From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18436 invoked by alias); 5 May 2011 23:06:11 -0000 Received: (qmail 18419 invoked by uid 22791); 5 May 2011 23:06:10 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from dair.pair.com (HELO dair.pair.com) (209.68.1.49) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with SMTP; Thu, 05 May 2011 23:05:56 +0000 Received: (qmail 95589 invoked by uid 20157); 5 May 2011 23:05:55 -0000 Received: from localhost (sendmail-bs@127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 5 May 2011 23:05:55 -0000 Date: Thu, 05 May 2011 23:06:00 -0000 From: Hans-Peter Nilsson To: "Joseph S. Myers" cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Remove code handling old ARM aliases from GDB In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (BSF 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-IsSubscribed: yes 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: 2011-05/txt/msg00163.txt.bz2 On Thu, 5 May 2011, Joseph S. Myers wrote: > On Thu, 5 May 2011, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote: > > > On Thu, 5 May 2011, Joseph S. Myers wrote: > > > On Thu, 5 May 2011, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote: > > > > > > > > -if { [istarget xscale*-*-*] } { > > > > > +if { [istarget arm*-*-*] } { > > > > > > > How did you test these changes? > > > > > > I considered them sufficiently obviously syntactically correct not to need > > > testing. > > > > It might have seemed like that at the time, but obviously it > > wasn't so. > > Well, it was *syntactically correct*, as shown by the tests running in > your log rather than hitting a Tcl syntax error. Please, we're not talking about Tcl syntax. > > > I don't call that breaking testing; I call that exposing bugs (whether in > > > the simulator or testsuite) that were previously hidden by the use of an > > > obsolete target triplet name. > > > > arm-elf passed before and does not anymore after those changes. > > "arm-elf" is not a testcase. I'm not sure what you mean, but "arm-elf passed" was a contraction for "when running the sim tests for the arm-elf target, they all passed", which should be obvious from the context. > A testsuite regression is when a test assertion fails before and passes > after a patch. A test assertion corresponds to particular text that may > appear after "PASS: " or "FAIL: " in the .sum file (for a properly > functioning DejaGnu testsuite, a slightly looser definition may be > appropriate for GDB at present). A failure of a test that was not run > before the patch is not a regression. I did not say that a specific test regressed; I didn't even mention the word regression. But now that you mention it, the end result of running the test-suite for the arm-elf is certainly a regression from before those changes. > > That's breaking testing. > > No, breaking testing would be introducing a syntax error so that tests > that previously run stop running or run incorrectly. Output with FAILs in > it isn't broken, it simply gives information about what works and what > doesn't. If a FAIL replaced a PASS that would be a regression, not > breaking testing, but that isn't the case here either. Splitting of hairs, choice of words. I guess we have to disagree on the words, but I'm sure we can agree that running the tests does exit with an error after, but didn't before your changes. As having introduced this, you're on the hook to investigate and rectify. Another option to those I mentioned is to xfail or kfailing the failing tests. Please. brgds, H-P