From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11351 invoked by alias); 9 Sep 2014 15:56:23 -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 11339 invoked by uid 89); 9 Sep 2014 15:56:21 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: relay1.mentorg.com Received: from relay1.mentorg.com (HELO relay1.mentorg.com) (192.94.38.131) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Tue, 09 Sep 2014 15:56:20 +0000 Received: from nat-ies.mentorg.com ([192.94.31.2] helo=SVR-IES-FEM-02.mgc.mentorg.com) by relay1.mentorg.com with esmtp id 1XRNmD-0004SM-4m from Maciej_Rozycki@mentor.com ; Tue, 09 Sep 2014 08:56:17 -0700 Received: from localhost (137.202.0.76) by SVR-IES-FEM-02.mgc.mentorg.com (137.202.0.106) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.2.247.3; Tue, 9 Sep 2014 16:56:15 +0100 Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2014 15:56:00 -0000 From: "Maciej W. Rozycki" To: Pedro Alves CC: Yao Qi , Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] GDB/testsuite: Avoid timeout lowering In-Reply-To: <53D793C4.30200@redhat.com> Message-ID: References: <53D1B4CC.4010004@codesourcery.com> <53D793C4.30200@redhat.com> User-Agent: Alpine 1.10 (DEB 962 2008-03-14) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" X-SW-Source: 2014-09/txt/msg00237.txt.bz2 On Tue, 29 Jul 2014, Pedro Alves wrote: > >> 2. Any timeout argument takes precedence. This is for special cases such > >> as within the framework library code, e.g. it doesn't make sense to > >> send `set height 0' with a timeout of 7200 seconds. This is a local > >> command that does not interact with the target and setting a high > >> timeout here only risks a test suite run taking ages if it goes astray > >> for some reason. > > Indeed. It feels like a host vs target timeout concept. That is, we > can still have a slow remote host, but that's a different vector of > slow vs a slow target. Hmm, we may consider making the distinction more prominent somehow. No idea outright exactly how, however I'll see if anything smart pops into my mind sometime. > >> 3. The fallback timeout of 60s remains. > > > > Maciej, > > IWBN to put the descriptions about timeout selection into the comments > > of proc gdb_expect. > > Agreed. Or even somewhere more central, and have gdb_expect > gdb_test_multiple, etc. refer to that. I'll think about it, unless any of you beats me to it. ;) > > I don't see anything wrong in this patch. > > Me neither. Applied now, thanks for your review. Maciej