Re: [rfc] Handle lack of non-stop support more gracefully

[Pedro Alves <pedro at codesourcery dot com>]

On Monday 14 June 2010 16:49:56, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
> > I'm still a bit confused over how the non-stop MI handle this.  If

(for the record, I meant "the all-stop MI tests" here.)

> > mi_gdb_target_cmd fails to connect, it seems to return 0 anyway, so
> > the following tests will just cascade in FAILs.  For other, non-remote
> > targets, mi_gdb_target_load will call perror on connection fail, but
> > the gdbserver branch at the top doesn't.
> 
> I would suggest that just about any use of perror is wrong here.  If
> the underlying library routine detects any condition that makes the
> rest of the test execution impossible, it should itself issue an
> appropriate test status, which would usually be FAIL (if the condition
> is due to a GDB bug), UNSUPPORTED (if it is due to some feature not
> available on the platform), or UNRESOLVED (if it is due to some setup
> or other external issue, like the target connection failing).
> 
> Then, the library should return an error code that causes the main
> test case to silently stop any further test execution.

Thanks.  Sounds like a good plan.

-- 
Pedro Alves