Re: [RFA] Add shared object relocation tests

[Raoul Gough <RaoulGough@yahoo.co.uk>]

Raoul Gough <RaoulGough@yahoo.co.uk> writes:

> Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com> writes:
[snip]
>> Please just use return, not gdb_suppress_entire_file.  In particular,
>> using both causes the _next_ test to fail, I think.
>
> Hmmm.... gdb_suppress_entire_file seems to be the usual response to
> testcase compilation failures, so it would probably make more sense to
> remove the return statement instead. I don't really know what the pros
> and cons are in this case - is there some reason to prefer the return
> option (what about logging the error in that case?)

OK, I managed to mess up CC'ing Daniel with my posting, but he
suggested via email that I use "untested" instead of
gdb_suppress_entire_file. It looks like a suitable example is in
src/gdb/testsuite/gdb.java/jmisc.exp in case anyone else is
interested.

I'm updating shreloc.exp now, and will add the files to CVS later
today, unless somebody objects in the mean time.

-- 
Raoul Gough
"Let there be one measure for wine throughout our kingdom, and one
measure for ale, and one measure for corn" - Magna Carta