From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14265 invoked by alias); 9 Apr 2003 22:14:49 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 14254 invoked from network); 9 Apr 2003 22:14:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO jackfruit.Stanford.EDU) (171.64.38.136) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 9 Apr 2003 22:14:49 -0000 Received: (from carlton@localhost) by jackfruit.Stanford.EDU (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h39MEfp13601; Wed, 9 Apr 2003 15:14:41 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: jackfruit.Stanford.EDU: carlton set sender to carlton@math.stanford.edu using -f To: Jim Blandy Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: RFA: report failure to restore selected frame, but continue References: From: David Carlton Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2003 22:14:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.4 (Common Lisp) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2003-04/txt/msg00185.txt.bz2 On 09 Apr 2003 16:41:06 -0500, Jim Blandy said: [ message snipped ] Basically fine, just a few comments. It might be nice if there were a test for this somewhere appropriate in gdb.base, in which case the big comment could go there: or is there a reason why this only manifests itself in C++? Actually, I'm not convinced that all of the big comment belongs in the test suite at all: why not put it some place in the GDB source code and/or the bug database, with a reference to that in the testsuite? The diagnosis of the problem should be in the place where it people fixing the problem will be most likely to see it, after all. The use of a conditional setup_kfail followed by a fail is good: normally, I don't like setup_kfail so much, but it's quite appropriate here. > + # of 4-2003 it doesn't, so code like frame_find_by_id can't Personally, I'd say "April 2003" or "2003-04-09" or something instead of "4-2003". > + # fail. We should detect report that failure, but let the marker call Typo. > + send_gdb "frame\n" > + gdb_expect { > + -re "#0 marker1.*$gdb_prompt $" { > + setup_kfail "gdb/1155" s390-*-linux-gnu > + fail "re-selected 'main' frame after inferior method call (gdb/1155)" > + gdb_test "finish" ".*main.*at .*userdef.cc:27\[67\].*" \ > + "finish call to marker1" > + } > + -re "#1 ($hex in )?main.*$gdb_prompt $" { > + pass "re-selected 'main' frame after inferior method call" > + } > + -re ".*$gdb_prompt $" { > + fail "re-selected 'main' frame after inferior method call" > + } > + timeout { > + fail "re-selected 'main' frame after inferior method call (timeout)" > + } > + } > + We're using gdb_test_multiple now: replace the first two lines by: gdb_test_multiple "frame" "re-selected 'main' frame after inferior method call" { and delete the last two branches. (I'm pretty sure that's right, run it to make sure.) You can see an example in gdb.c++/templates.exp. Also, don't put (gdb/1155) in the fail message: the setup_kfail should take care of that for you. Ditto for the uses in the other two files, of course. Other than that, it's fine: no need to resubmit it for approval after making those changes unless you think it would be useful for some reason. David Carlton carlton@math.stanford.edu