Re: failures in fileio.exp

[Corinna Vinschen <vinschen@redhat.com>]

On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 08:07:43AM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> >On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 03:30:14PM -0700, David Carlton wrote:
> >
> >>I'm seeing these failures in fileio.exp:
> >>
> >>FAIL: gdb.base/fileio.exp: Stat a NULL pathname returns ENOENT
> >>FAIL: gdb.base/fileio.exp: System with invalid command returns 127
> >>FAIL: gdb.base/fileio.exp: Renaming a nonexistant file returns ENOENT
> >>FAIL: gdb.base/fileio.exp: Unlinking a nonexistant file returns ENOENT
> >>FAIL: gdb.base/fileio.exp: Time(2) returns feasible values
> >>
> >>This is on Red Hat 8.0 (i686-pc-linux-gnu), GCC 3.1.  I'll include the
> >>gdb.log below, if it helps.
> >
> >
> >Fileio.exp only works for remote targets and then only for targets on
> >which the fileio protocol is implemented.  I've added a conditional
> >which only runs the test on remote targets.
> 
> My understanding from the thread discussing fileio.exp:
> http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2003-06/msg00410.html
> was that it should work native.  Restricting it to the remote case would 
> leave it open to bit rot.
> 
> The above indicate that this is true.  The differences are minor syscall 
> nuances and can be handled with a bit of testsuite tweaking.

It's totally nonsense to test on a native target.  In that case you're
testing the operating system, not the fileio protocol, which is the
task of that test.  Tweaking the testcase is even making things worse
since it's *strictly* defined how the fileio code works and what
return codes and error codes are expected.  If you're going to weaken
the testcase by allowing different results just for the sake of running
a useless test, that's IMHO counterproductive.

Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen
Cygwin Developer
Red Hat, Inc.
mailto:vinschen@redhat.com