From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12692 invoked by alias); 11 Sep 2009 21:52:47 -0000 Received: (qmail 12683 invoked by uid 22791); 11 Sep 2009 21:52:47 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS 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; Fri, 11 Sep 2009 21:52:41 +0000 Received: from int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n8BLqFf8021362; Fri, 11 Sep 2009 17:52:16 -0400 Received: from ns3.rdu.redhat.com (ns3.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.255.199]) by int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n8BLqFYk012441; Fri, 11 Sep 2009 17:52:15 -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 n8BLqDEH003946; Fri, 11 Sep 2009 17:52:14 -0400 Received: by opsy.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 500) id 57723378188; Fri, 11 Sep 2009 15:52:13 -0600 (MDT) From: Tom Tromey To: Joel Brobecker Cc: Michael Snyder , Hui Zhu , gdb-patches ml Subject: Re: [RFA] Make the prec support signal better[0/4] References: <4AA95648.10605@vmware.com> <20090910232952.GP20694@adacore.com> Reply-To: tromey@redhat.com Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 21:52:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20090910232952.GP20694@adacore.com> (Joel Brobecker's message of "Thu, 10 Sep 2009 16:29:52 -0700") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1 (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: 2009-09/txt/msg00342.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Joel" == Joel Brobecker writes: >> if [target_info exists gdb,nosignals] { >> verbose "Skipping sigall-reverse.exp because of nosignals." >> continue >> } Joel> I wonder why we do a continue here, whereas we do a return elsewhere: >> if ![target_info exists gdb,can_reverse] { >> return >> } Joel> I wish we had a cookbook for writing testcases, I always forget what Joel> we're supposed to do :-(. Anyone knows if this is significant? Internally, all Tcl functions return a result code. It has been a while, but ISTR the codes are something like: OK, ERROR, CONTINUE, BREAK, RETURN. This allows execution control without the use of longjmp... the "return" function returns RETURN, continue returns CONTINUE, etc; then a surrounding loop function examines the code to decide what to do next. I presume, without looking, that the "source" command probably treats CONTINUE, BREAK, and RETURN equivalently. That is, there is likely no difference. "return" is clearer, though. I agree it would be good to have a test case cookbook, and guidelines. Tom