* RFA: gdb.base/auxv.exp: 'untested' instead of gdb_suppress_entire_file
@ 2005-05-02 19:13 Jim Blandy
2005-05-02 19:14 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Jim Blandy @ 2005-05-02 19:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gdb-patches
Looking at this message:
http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2005-04/msg00143.html
I gather that changes like the below are welcome --- right?
2005-05-02 Jim Blandy <jimb@redhat.com>
* gdb.base/auxv.exp: Call 'untested' and return -1 instead of
calling gdb_suppress_entire_file.
Index: gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/auxv.exp
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/cvsfiles/devo/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/auxv.exp,v
retrieving revision 1.1
diff -c -p -r1.1 auxv.exp
*** gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/auxv.exp 13 Apr 2004 16:39:08 -0000 1.1
--- gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/auxv.exp 2 May 2005 19:08:09 -0000
*************** set corefile ${objdir}/${subdir}/${testf
*** 37,43 ****
set gcorefile ${objdir}/${subdir}/${testfile}.gcore
if { [gdb_compile "${srcdir}/${subdir}/${srcfile}" "${binfile}" executable {debug}] != "" } {
! gdb_suppress_entire_file "Testcase compile failed, so all tests in this file will automatically fail."
}
# Use a fresh directory to confine the native core dumps.
--- 37,44 ----
set gcorefile ${objdir}/${subdir}/${testfile}.gcore
if { [gdb_compile "${srcdir}/${subdir}/${srcfile}" "${binfile}" executable {debug}] != "" } {
! untested "couldn't compile ${srcdir}/${subdir}/${srcfile}"
! return -1
}
# Use a fresh directory to confine the native core dumps.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: RFA: gdb.base/auxv.exp: 'untested' instead of gdb_suppress_entire_file
2005-05-02 19:13 RFA: gdb.base/auxv.exp: 'untested' instead of gdb_suppress_entire_file Jim Blandy
@ 2005-05-02 19:14 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2005-05-02 21:00 ` Jim Blandy
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Daniel Jacobowitz @ 2005-05-02 19:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jim Blandy; +Cc: gdb-patches
On Mon, May 02, 2005 at 02:10:31PM -0500, Jim Blandy wrote:
>
> Looking at this message:
> http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2005-04/msg00143.html
>
> I gather that changes like the below are welcome --- right?
>
> 2005-05-02 Jim Blandy <jimb@redhat.com>
>
> * gdb.base/auxv.exp: Call 'untested' and return -1 instead of
> calling gdb_suppress_entire_file.
Please, yes. The results of gdb_suppress_entire_file are so messy!
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery, LLC
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: RFA: gdb.base/auxv.exp: 'untested' instead of gdb_suppress_entire_file
2005-05-02 19:14 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
@ 2005-05-02 21:00 ` Jim Blandy
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Jim Blandy @ 2005-05-02 21:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Daniel Jacobowitz; +Cc: gdb-patches
Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org> writes:
> On Mon, May 02, 2005 at 02:10:31PM -0500, Jim Blandy wrote:
> >
> > Looking at this message:
> > http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2005-04/msg00143.html
> >
> > I gather that changes like the below are welcome --- right?
> >
> > 2005-05-02 Jim Blandy <jimb@redhat.com>
> >
> > * gdb.base/auxv.exp: Call 'untested' and return -1 instead of
> > calling gdb_suppress_entire_file.
>
> Please, yes. The results of gdb_suppress_entire_file are so messy!
Okay --- I've committed this one. Thanks!
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2005-05-02 21:00 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2005-05-02 19:13 RFA: gdb.base/auxv.exp: 'untested' instead of gdb_suppress_entire_file Jim Blandy
2005-05-02 19:14 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2005-05-02 21:00 ` Jim Blandy
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox