From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca by simark.ca with LMTP id FQdIFB0+U2M/NQ8AWB0awg (envelope-from ) for ; Fri, 21 Oct 2022 20:49:33 -0400 Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id 469501E112; Fri, 21 Oct 2022 20:49:33 -0400 (EDT) Authentication-Results: simark.ca; dkim=pass (1024-bit key; secure) header.d=sourceware.org header.i=@sourceware.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=default header.b=PKD1cUtb; dkim-atps=neutral X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on simark.ca X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A,RDNS_DYNAMIC, URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 Received: from sourceware.org (ip-8-43-85-97.sourceware.org [8.43.85.97]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EA8371E0CB for ; Fri, 21 Oct 2022 20:49:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D8B2385614E for ; Sat, 22 Oct 2022 00:49:32 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 0D8B2385614E DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org; s=default; t=1666399772; bh=mrYvI+ofBcS5QkHU3wuQG+aEmM/eupMucnx0hGfZDkE=; h=Date:Subject:To:References:In-Reply-To:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe:From:Reply-To:Cc: From; b=PKD1cUtbcOK7fFrjFyLa74BaI6jlzUTXokih9Cw9z6g5sJPftATc6lMIXH903f3BU vKCuwB7IQmK77Ffg9srbFsh2P30j5dHJGtclRDWFghpUpAY7fMl+1W6ae+6cMgfBOB iLR2gFzvPsGG1N1myGje9OWnEgI17ZH8loSFpLvI= Received: from smtp.polymtl.ca (smtp.polymtl.ca [132.207.4.11]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 592953858288 for ; Sat, 22 Oct 2022 00:48:55 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 592953858288 Received: from simark.ca (simark.ca [158.69.221.121]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp.polymtl.ca (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id 29M0mlok013188 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 21 Oct 2022 20:48:51 -0400 DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp.polymtl.ca 29M0mlok013188 Received: from [10.0.0.11] (unknown [217.28.27.60]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 72CE71E0CB; Fri, 21 Oct 2022 20:48:46 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2022 20:48:46 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.3.1 Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 1/8] GDB/Guile: Don't assert that an integer value is boolean Content-Language: en-US To: "Maciej W. Rozycki" References: <1962a74c-690c-518e-0bfb-1d9fa2876847@polymtl.ca> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Poly-FromMTA: (simark.ca [158.69.221.121]) at Sat, 22 Oct 2022 00:48:47 +0000 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: , From: Simon Marchi via Gdb-patches Reply-To: Simon Marchi Cc: Simon Sobisch , Tom Tromey , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Errors-To: gdb-patches-bounces+public-inbox=simark.ca@sourceware.org Sender: "Gdb-patches" On 2022-10-21 16:54, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote: > On Fri, 21 Oct 2022, Simon Marchi wrote: > >> Hmm, I see this failure now: >> >> guile (set-parameter-value! test-PARAM_ZINTEGER-param #:unlimited)^M >> ERROR: In procedure set-parameter-value!:^M >> In procedure gdbscm_set_parameter_value_x: Wrong type argument in position 2 (expecting integer): #:unlimited^M >> Error while executing Scheme code.^M >> (gdb) FAIL: gdb.guile/scm-parameter.exp: kind=PARAM_ZINTEGER: test-PARAM_ZINTEGER-param: guile (set-parameter-value! test-PARAM_ZINTEGER-param #:unlimited) >> >> This is with Guile 3.0, if that matters. > > It's not a failure, the "ERROR: ..." message, perhaps confusingly, comes > from GDB under test rather than the DejaGNU test harness and therefore it > doesn't score as a test error or count towards test results. The context > is: > > (gdb) PASS: gdb.guile/scm-parameter.exp: kind=PARAM_ZINTEGER: test-PARAM_ZINTEGER-param: PARAM_ZINTEGER parameter value (2) > guile (set-parameter-value! test-PARAM_ZINTEGER-param #:unlimited) > ERROR: In procedure set-parameter-value!: > ERROR: In procedure gdbscm_set_parameter_value_x: Wrong type argument in position 2 (expecting integer): #:unlimited > Error while executing Scheme code. > (gdb) PASS: gdb.guile/scm-parameter.exp: kind=PARAM_ZINTEGER: test-PARAM_ZINTEGER-param: guile (set-parameter-value! test-PARAM_ZINTEGER-param #:unlimited) > > and the test case requires that message to be there to pass: > > set param_integer_error \ > "ERROR: In procedure set-parameter-value!:\r\nERROR: In procedure\ > gdbscm_set_parameter_value_x: Wrong type argument in position 2\ > \\(expecting integer\\): #:unlimited\r\nError while executing Scheme\ > code\\." > > so there's nothing to worry about. In other words the test case verifies > that a particular error message is printed by GDB when supplied with a > bogus command. Thanks for your meticulousness though! But in my case, it's really a DejaGNU FAIL. If you look carefully at the differences between our outputs, yours has this line: ERROR: In procedure gdbscm_set_parameter_value_x: Wrong type argument in position 2 (expecting integer): #:unlimited while mine has: In procedure gdbscm_set_parameter_value_x: Wrong type argument in position 2 (expecting integer): #:unlimited^M In other words, mine doesn't have ERROR printed on that line, for some reason. Simon