This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [RFA/testsuite] Cleanup pending breakpoints
- From: Pedro Alves <palves at redhat dot com>
- To: Keith Seitz <keiths at redhat dot com>
- Cc: "gdb-patches at sourceware dot org ml" <gdb-patches at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2013 18:44:50 +0100
- Subject: Re: [RFA/testsuite] Cleanup pending breakpoints
- References: <517716B5 dot 7050406 at redhat dot com> <5177EDAF dot 6030107 at redhat dot com> <517986D9 dot 3060607 at redhat dot com>
On 04/25/2013 08:41 PM, Keith Seitz wrote:
> On 04/24/2013 07:35 AM, Pedro Alves wrote:
>
>>> Comments/questions?
>>
>> I wonder whether "allow-pending" is the right option for the "pending" tests.
>> As in, "allow" != "require". I wonder whether we're losing test
>> coverage in those cases?
>
> Well, yes and no. From reading through all the tests, I think the "allow-pending" option is a bit underdefined/underterministic. Many of the tests that use it pretty much would fail miserably if a real breakpoint was set instead, yet "allow-pending" doesn't fail if this happens.
>
> IMO gdb_breakpoint should set what was requested or FAIL,
I agree, but...
e.g., if allow-pending, ONLY pending breakpoint would produce a PASS.
...right, but then "allow" would be confusing.
> Nonetheless, since we have it already, I have patches now which add a "pending" option to gdb_breakpoint, meaning that it *must* set a pending breakpoint. Anything else will FAIL.
/me likes.
> Or I can mutate allow-pending to this new pending and eliminate the ambiguity that allow-pending introduced.
Not sure I understand the difference. You mean, retain the "allow-pending"
spelling, but make it _require_ pending? I'd rather not, as it's
confusing naming/API. If in the end, there's no use in the tree for
an "allow-pending" option that allows pending but doesn't fail with a
regular non-pending breakpoint, in addition to a new "pending" option that
_requires_ pending, then I'd rather eliminate "allow-pending".
> What would you prefer?
Thanks,
--
Pedro Alves