From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 36363 invoked by alias); 23 Feb 2017 14:54:13 -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 36288 invoked by uid 89); 23 Feb 2017 14:54:13 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy=H*f:sk:6e1f21a, H*MI:sk:6e1f21a, H*i:sk:6e1f21a X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 14:54:11 +0000 Received: from int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.24]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8DFE14DD4C; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 14:54:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn04.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.4]) by int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id v1NEsAnh012999; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 09:54:10 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH] Restrict gdb.base/gcore-relro-pie.exp to native/linux targets To: Luis Machado , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <1487859197-6269-1-git-send-email-lgustavo@codesourcery.com> <093bd3d5-9723-2412-a736-8f29686d4a8a@redhat.com> <6e1f21a5-3283-b30e-d7fa-e2c1453af882@codesourcery.com> From: Pedro Alves Message-ID: Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2017 14:54:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <6e1f21a5-3283-b30e-d7fa-e2c1453af882@codesourcery.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2017-02/txt/msg00624.txt.bz2 On 02/23/2017 02:47 PM, Luis Machado wrote: > I still think it doesn't make much sense to run these tests if we're not > sure gcore will support them. I don't understand what you're saying. We can't be sure up front. The "gcore" that is run is GDB's "gcore" command. If that doesn't work, gdb_gcore_cmd calls unsupported, and the rest of the testcase is skipped. > They may run a few early tests/setup > tests, but that won't translate into meaningful PASSes. But i'm ok > keeping it as-is if others think the early test PASSes are useful. Looks like it's been useful to catch a startup code problem. ;-) Thanks, Pedro Alves