From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23195 invoked by alias); 28 Jul 2010 21:57:54 -0000 Received: (qmail 23185 invoked by uid 22791); 28 Jul 2010 21:57:53 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 28 Jul 2010 21:57:49 +0000 Received: from int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o6SLvN3f032743 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 28 Jul 2010 17:57:23 -0400 Received: from ns3.rdu.redhat.com (ns3.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.255.199]) by int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o6SLvNWO020607; Wed, 28 Jul 2010 17:57:23 -0400 Received: from opsy.redhat.com (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by ns3.rdu.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o6SLvM4o025832; Wed, 28 Jul 2010 17:57:22 -0400 Received: by opsy.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 500) id 284B73792BB; Wed, 28 Jul 2010 15:57:22 -0600 (MDT) From: Tom Tromey To: Joel Brobecker Cc: Thiago Jung Bauermann , gdb-patches ml Subject: Re: [RFA] Fix setting of VSX registers References: <1279738729.11022.23.camel@hactar> <1280165485.2661.85.camel@hactar> <20100728214252.GY13267@adacore.com> Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2010 21:57:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20100728214252.GY13267@adacore.com> (Joel Brobecker's message of "Wed, 28 Jul 2010 14:42:52 -0700") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii 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 X-SW-Source: 2010-07/txt/msg00529.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Joel" == Joel Brobecker writes: Tom> One approach would be to refactor these procs so that your use can work. Tom> I think this would be nice to have -- I think it would be good to have Tom> fewer boilerplate tests with "synthetic" names, ones that nobody is Tom> interested in. Joel> When we discussed the new gdb-testsuite that AdaCore uses, we talked Joel> about that quite a bit. And unsurprisingly, there was no obvious answer. Joel> These tests can be an annoyance if all hell breaks lose and they all Joel> start to fail. A PASS indeed adds little value to the results. But Joel> on the other hand, I have always felt that we should verify that these Joel> commands have the expected results, and that we should get a FAIL if Joel> we detect something went wrong. Ideally, we wanted to be able to group Joel> a sequence of commands as one "setup phase" and generate one FAIL if Joel> part of the sequence fails. But in the end, we decided that it was just Joel> simpler to treat everything as a test (this is what I have pretty much Joel> done in dejagnu as well). Yeah, it is definitely simpler to keep going with what we already have. At least for me, test suite hacking is in itself not very interesting, so I usually just opt for the minimal change that works, and move on to fun things. If someone is motivated to work on this, though, one approach would be to separate out the mechanics of sending a command to gdb and matching responses from the pass/fail reporting. Then it would be possible to write a proc that evals its argument and passes or fails based on the answer: single_gdb_test "test name here" { gdb_send_no_response "set language c"; # throws exception on "failure" gdb_send_and_response "print 23" " = 23" } ... or what have you. Another thing I've often wanted is to have the tests forced to have unique names: by having the test frame work automatically include the .exp name in the test name, and by automatically handling duplicates somehow (either an error, or appending a counter). Tom