Summary: | declaration.exp empty-struct always fails, resolve-fail passes erroneously | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | systemtap | Reporter: | Mark Wielaard <mark> |
Component: | testsuite | Assignee: | Unassigned <systemtap> |
Status: | RESOLVED FIXED | ||
Severity: | normal | CC: | jistone |
Priority: | P2 | ||
Version: | unspecified | ||
Target Milestone: | --- | ||
Host: | Target: | ||
Build: | Last reconfirmed: |
Description
Mark Wielaard
2009-10-04 15:31:41 UTC
This seems to be testing that one module can implicitly provide a struct declaration for a probe in some other module. IIRC, we decided against this "global type" behavior, opting instead to go with explicit @casts where necessary... For now I XFAILed this test. But maybe it should be removed completely? I'm thinking it should be removed. If we want to test that one module can implicitly provide a struct declaration for a probe in some other module, the safest way might be to write/compile/install a couple of custom kernel modules. But, that seems like overkill for a situation that '@cast' is designed to solve. (In reply to comment #3) > I'm thinking it should be removed. OK, I removed the test completely. |