From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx2.suse.de (mx2.suse.de [195.135.220.15]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 90F663851C3B for ; Thu, 4 Jun 2020 13:05:21 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org 90F663851C3B Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=suse.de Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=tdevries@suse.de X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at test-mx.suse.de Received: from relay2.suse.de (unknown [195.135.220.254]) by mx2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE76AB020; Thu, 4 Jun 2020 13:05:22 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [PATCH][gdb/testsuite] Fix PATH error in gdb_file_cmd To: Pedro Alves , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20200604102423.GA2054@delia> <6e23995a-349d-7c5e-970e-648c3fade47c@suse.de> <1fe127b1-7238-1348-138a-58d8c5fd477d@redhat.com> From: Tom de Vries Autocrypt: addr=tdevries@suse.de; keydata= xsBNBF0ltCcBCADDhsUnMMdEXiHFfqJdXeRvgqSEUxLCy/pHek88ALuFnPTICTwkf4g7uSR7 HvOFUoUyu8oP5mNb4VZHy3Xy8KRZGaQuaOHNhZAT1xaVo6kxjswUi3vYgGJhFMiLuIHdApoc u5f7UbV+egYVxmkvVLSqsVD4pUgHeSoAcIlm3blZ1sDKviJCwaHxDQkVmSsGXImaAU+ViJ5l CwkvyiiIifWD2SoOuFexZyZ7RUddLosgsO0npVUYbl6dEMq2a5ijGF6/rBs1m3nAoIgpXk6P TCKlSWVW6OCneTaKM5C387972qREtiArTakRQIpvDJuiR2soGfdeJ6igGA1FZjU+IsM5ABEB AAHNH1RvbSBkZSBWcmllcyA8dGRldnJpZXNAc3VzZS5kZT7CwKsEEwEIAD4WIQSsnSe5hKbL MK1mGmjuhV2rbOJEoAUCXSW0JwIbAwUJA8JnAAULCQgHAgYVCgkICwIEFgIDAQIeAQIXgAAh CRDuhV2rbOJEoBYhBKydJ7mEpsswrWYaaO6FXats4kSgc48H/Ra2lq5p3dHsrlQLqM7N68Fo eRDf3PMevXyMlrCYDGLVncQwMw3O/AkousktXKQ42DPJh65zoXB22yUt8m0g12xkLax98KFJ 5NyUloa6HflLl+wQL/uZjIdNUQaHQLw3HKwRMVi4l0/Jh/TygYG1Dtm8I4o708JS4y8GQxoQ UL0z1OM9hyM3gI2WVTTyprsBHy2EjMOu/2Xpod95pF8f90zBLajy6qXEnxlcsqreMaqmkzKn 3KTZpWRxNAS/IH3FbGQ+3RpWkNGSJpwfEMVCeyK5a1n7yt1podd1ajY5mA1jcaUmGppqx827 8TqyteNe1B/pbiUt2L/WhnTgW1NC1QDOwE0EXSW0JwEIAM99H34Bu4MKM7HDJVt864MXbx7B 1M93wVlpJ7Uq+XDFD0A0hIal028j+h6jA6bhzWto4RUfDl/9mn1StngNVFovvwtfzbamp6+W pKHZm9X5YvlIwCx131kTxCNDcF+/adRW4n8CU3pZWYmNVqhMUiPLxElA6QhXTtVBh1RkjCZQ Kmbd1szvcOfaD8s+tJABJzNZsmO2hVuFwkDrRN8Jgrh92a+yHQPd9+RybW2l7sJv26nkUH5Z 5s84P6894ebgimcprJdAkjJTgprl1nhgvptU5M9Uv85Pferoh2groQEAtRPlCGrZ2/2qVNe9 XJfSYbiyedvApWcJs5DOByTaKkcAEQEAAcLAkwQYAQgAJhYhBKydJ7mEpsswrWYaaO6FXats 4kSgBQJdJbQnAhsMBQkDwmcAACEJEO6FXats4kSgFiEErJ0nuYSmyzCtZhpo7oVdq2ziRKD3 twf7BAQBZ8TqR812zKAD7biOnWIJ0McV72PFBxmLIHp24UVe0ZogtYMxSWKLg3csh0yLVwc7 H3vldzJ9AoK3Qxp0Q6K/rDOeUy3HMqewQGcqrsRRh0NXDIQk5CgSrZslPe47qIbe3O7ik/MC q31FNIAQJPmKXX25B115MMzkSKlv4udfx7KdyxHrTSkwWZArLQiEZj5KG4cCKhIoMygPTA3U yGaIvI/BGOtHZ7bEBVUCFDFfOWJ26IOCoPnSVUvKPEOH9dv+sNy7jyBsP5QxeTqwxC/1ZtNS DUCSFQjqA6bEGwM22dP8OUY6SC94x1G81A9/xbtm9LQxKm0EiDH8KBMLfQ== Message-ID: Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2020 15:05:06 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1fe127b1-7238-1348-138a-58d8c5fd477d@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-11.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, KAM_DMARC_STATUS, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: gdb-patches@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2020 13:05:24 -0000 On 04-06-2020 14:18, Pedro Alves wrote: > On 6/4/20 12:51 PM, Tom de Vries wrote: >> On 04-06-2020 13:43, Pedro Alves wrote: >>> On 6/4/20 11:24 AM, Tom de Vries wrote: >>> I have no idea why this one is a fail while everywhere else >>> in the procedure perror is used. Seems inconsistent. >> >> It is locally inconsistent indeed, but it is consistent with all other >> handling of "A problem internal to GDB has been detected" in gdb.exp. > > If you look at those other spots, they are using fail/pass in the other > surrounding -re's, and thus that's just another fail among all those. > I.e., those cases are internally consistent. Like e.g.: > > -re "${sentinel}" { > fail "${test} (pattern ${index} + sentinel)" > set ok 0 > } > -re ".*A problem internal to GDB has been detected" { > fail "${test} (GDB internal error)" > set ok 0 > gdb_internal_error_resync > } > timeout { > fail "${test} (pattern ${index} + sentinel) (timeout)" > set ok 0 > } > > The gdb_file_cmd one started out with a message string that didn't > even include the parens around the "GDB internal error" string in 04e7407c59a: > > + -re "A problem internal to GDB has been detected" { > + fail "($arg) GDB internal error" > + gdb_internal_error_resync > + return -1 > + } > > The parens were later added in 5b7d00507b9: > > -re "A problem internal to GDB has been detected" { > - fail "($arg) GDB internal error" > + fail "($arg) (GDB internal error)" > > Arguably that patch should have switched to perror instead. > A FAIL message with only text wrapped in parens is odd, > since the trailing "(foo)" text is not supposed to count as > test message. So in effect, you could say that this fail has > no test message, the same as if you wrote: > > fail "" OK, I see your point, I'll prepare a patch for this, so let's settle on the error message. How about: ... - fail "($arg) (GDB internal error)" + perror "Couldn't load $arg into $GDB (GDB internal error)." ... ? Thanks, - Tom