From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 79281 invoked by alias); 23 Feb 2017 15:10:56 -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 79266 invoked by uid 89); 23 Feb 2017 15:10:55 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=H*f:sk:6e1f21a, H*f:sk:b4624f3, H*i:sk:b4624f3, H*MI:sk:b4624f3 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; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 15:10:54 +0000 Received: from svr-orw-mbx-03.mgc.mentorg.com ([147.34.90.203]) by relay1.mentorg.com with esmtp id 1cgv2j-0004pk-4V from Luis_Gustavo@mentor.com ; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 07:10:53 -0800 Received: from [172.30.12.171] (147.34.91.1) by svr-orw-mbx-03.mgc.mentorg.com (147.34.90.203) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 07:10:50 -0800 Reply-To: Luis Machado Subject: Re: [PATCH] Restrict gdb.base/gcore-relro-pie.exp to native/linux targets References: <1487859197-6269-1-git-send-email-lgustavo@codesourcery.com> <093bd3d5-9723-2412-a736-8f29686d4a8a@redhat.com> <6e1f21a5-3283-b30e-d7fa-e2c1453af882@codesourcery.com> To: Pedro Alves , From: Luis Machado Message-ID: Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2017 15:10:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ClientProxiedBy: svr-orw-mbx-02.mgc.mentorg.com (147.34.90.202) To svr-orw-mbx-03.mgc.mentorg.com (147.34.90.203) X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2017-02/txt/msg00627.txt.bz2 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. :-)