From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca (simark.ca [158.69.221.121]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A5677385C017 for ; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 16:08:03 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org A5677385C017 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=simark.ca Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=simark@simark.ca Received: from [10.0.0.11] (unknown [192.222.164.54]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CFD811E5F9; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 12:08:02 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/8] [gdb/testsuite] use args as lib list for jit-elf tests To: "Strasuns, Mihails" , "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" References: <165972> <20200327103932.17765-1-mihails.strasuns@intel.com> <20200327103932.17765-4-mihails.strasuns@intel.com> From: Simon Marchi Message-ID: Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2020 12:08:01 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US-large Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-12.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, KAM_DMARC_STATUS, SPF_HELO_PASS, 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: Tue, 31 Mar 2020 16:08:04 -0000 On 2020-03-31 11:13 a.m., Strasuns, Mihails via Gdb-patches wrote: > What do you mean here? That you would prefer to switch from untested to fail? It used to result in untested in the original test. In the current test case, if we fail to compile the test, we call "return -1", which skips the execution of the rest of the test. We don't want to keep executing the test if the compilation failed. I'd suggest that your new compile functions also returns something to indicate to the caller that the compilation failed, so the caller can also return early. Does that make sense? Simon