Re: Ada and the "start" command

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>]

On Sun, Mar 06, 2005 at 01:44:21PM -0800, Joel Brobecker wrote:
> > > Do any of the gdb.ada tests pass for you, using a clean GDB tree?  My
> > > impression is that the "start" command, upon which they all rely, can
> > > not possibly work in FSF GDB.  There's ada_main_name, which correctly
> > > digs the name out of the executable, but it isn't hooked up to
> > > anything.  So "start" always goes to "main".
> > > 
> > > If the tests can't work in this tree, they should be disabled.  I'm not
> > > sure what the plan for ada_main_name is.
> > 
> > Scratch the last sentence; I found the pending patch on gdb-patches.  I
> > still do not like tests which will not yet pass being added to the
> > source tree.
> 
> I know what you mean.
> 
> At the time the test was added, the test was supposed to be failing for
> a short period of time, because it was felt that the problem be fixed
> quickly (we had discussed on how we were going to hook that up and
> agreed on a plan). Since then, Elena jumped in, approved almost
> everything, except one bit. I answered her message, but never received
> any response, even after a couple of pings.
> 
> We can do two things: Either have somebody else than Elena approve
> (or comment) on the patch, or KFAIL the tests. Do you think you can
> approve the rest of the patch?

Or we could politely ask Elena again, and KFAIL the tests - that's my
prefered solution.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery, LLC