Hi Tom,

>>>>>> "Rainer" == Rainer Orth <ro@CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE> writes:
>
> Rainer> Right: some of them already do their own checks for async support:
>
> Rainer>       gdb.base/async.exp
> Rainer>       gdb.base/bg-exec-sigint-bp-cond.exp
> Rainer>       gdb.base/interrupt-noterm.exp
>
> Rainer> but in those cases, async commands are a crucial part of the tests and I
> Rainer> couldn't easily use the new supports_target_async there.
>
> I think it would be fine to stick
>
>     require supports_target_async
>
> At the top of each of these files, and simplify some of the tests to
> just assumes async execution will work.

in some cases, this seems to be the right way forward.  However, I've a
hard time telling which ones should have this treatment.  Others clearly
run tests both in sync and async modes (like
gdb.base/infcall-timeout.exp,
gdb.threads/infcall-from-bp-cond-timeout.exp).  At least in those cases,
we can just skip the async subtests.

> However that can also be comfortably done in a separate patch as well.

I'd rather do it this way, initially concentrating on the cases where
skipping target_async tests can avoid large numbers of timeouts.

> Rainer> +# Return 1 if target supports asynchronous execution, otherwise return 0.
> Rainer> +gdb_caching_proc supports_target_async {} {
> Rainer> +    global srcdir subdir gdb_prompt
> Rainer> +
> Rainer> +    set me "supports_target_async"
> Rainer> +
> Rainer> +    set src { int main() { return 0; } }
> Rainer> +    if {![gdb_simple_compile $me $src executable ""]} {
> Rainer> +	return 0
> Rainer> +    }
> Rainer> +
> Rainer> +    gdb_exit
> Rainer> +    gdb_start
> Rainer> +    gdb_reinitialize_dir $srcdir/$subdir
>
> I think these three lines can be replaced with "clean_restart".

Nice.  So far, I've simply followed existing current practice, although
I've wondered how many tests seem extremely repetetive and
consequentially hard to read.

> Rainer> +    if { ![runto_main] } {
> Rainer> +	return 0
>
> This branch doesn't gdb_exit but falling through does.
> Likewise this return doesn't delete the file.
>
> So maybe reworking this to fall through to the cleanup & final return
> would be better.

Done in the attached revision.

Thanks.
	Rainer

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rainer Orth, Center for Biotechnology, Bielefeld University