From: Luis Machado <lgustavo@codesourcery.com>
To: Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com>, <gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Restrict gdb.base/gcore-relro-pie.exp to native/linux targets
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2017 15:10:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <dcc9c38f-7da5-62b6-35dc-7cf8d0d6d803@codesourcery.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <b4624f3a-ede3-6618-b118-91b1cb7dd4a5@redhat.com>
On 02/23/2017 08:54 AM, Pedro Alves wrote:
> 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.
>
The point is that we are indeed sure this isn't supported, unless we
officially support core files on bare-metal targets (i don't think we
do). See below.
>> 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. ;-)
Don't you agree this is a clear sign we are really testing something
else other than core file support? It just means a proper standalone
test doesn't exist to catch such a problem and we got lucky crashing
when doing a core file test on a target that doesn't support it. It is
not like the test was designed to catch this.
I find it a bit messy. A proper test would attempt to run pie
executables to completion (and i can contribute that to verify this
particular problem).
I just don't like the concept of running a test that is unsupported on a
particular target (core files) only to test a side-effect during
pre-test/setup phases. It only adds to artificial PASSes that don't
necessarily translate to robustness.
But i understand if this is not acceptable. I just want to clean this
target up, and seeing core file tests being executed is just confusing. :-)
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-02-23 15:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-02-23 14:13 Luis Machado
2017-02-23 14:25 ` Pedro Alves
2017-02-23 14:47 ` Luis Machado
2017-02-23 14:54 ` Pedro Alves
2017-02-23 15:10 ` Luis Machado [this message]
2017-02-23 15:43 ` Pedro Alves
2017-02-23 16:16 ` Luis Machado
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=dcc9c38f-7da5-62b6-35dc-7cf8d0d6d803@codesourcery.com \
--to=lgustavo@codesourcery.com \
--cc=gdb-patches@sourceware.org \
--cc=palves@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox