Re: [PATCH] gdb: tests: mark async unsupported dynamically

[Pedro Alves <palves at redhat dot com>]

On 06/25/2015 12:21 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On 24 Jun 2015 12:25, Pedro Alves wrote:
>> We should also return something that the caller checks to bail the
>> rest of the file.  Otherwise, as soon as we add something to the
>> test that expects that e.g., "print foo" returns some value after the
>> previous async commands worked, that test will fail on sync targets.
> 
> returning an error on unsupported makes sense.  but if we fail in general, don't 
> want to run all tests and such still ?

In general I agree we should consider that.  E.g.,
gdb.base/interrupt-noterm.exp skips the rest of the tests only if async
isn't supported, not on failure.  But that one open codes the async-supported check.
Here, it didn't seem worth the trouble to have separate record codes, though I'm
certainly fine with it.  (E.g., -1/0/1.)  The reason it didn't feel like
worth the trouble is that if you fail the first "next&", then the rest of
the tests will no longer make sense anyway, as they will depend on
having nexted correctly to the right line.  So the very likely result is
a cascade of FAIL timeouts.  Hence a single FAIL seems good enough.
But as said, if you want to add the distinction, super fine with me.  Might
be a good idea if we move the test_background to lib/gdb.exp and use it in
other tests (like gdb.base/interrupt-noterm.exp) anyway.

Thanks,
Pedro Alves