Re: [PATCH] btrace: add unsupported/untested messages when skipping tests

[Luis Machado <lgustavo at codesourcery dot com>]

On 12/12/2016 02:26 AM, Metzger, Markus T wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Luis Machado [mailto:lgustavo@codesourcery.com]
> > Sent: Friday, December 9, 2016 4:32 PM
> > To: Metzger, Markus T <markus.t.metzger@intel.com>; gdb-
> > patches@sourceware.org
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH] btrace: add unsupported/untested messages when skipping
> > tests
>
> Hi Luis,
>
>
> > In previous reviews it was deemed more appropriate to just say "failed
> > to compile", since the source file information could be extracted from
> > the testcase itself via the log file.
>
> I don't see why we should not print it.  The file name may already help to see a
> pattern just from the FAIL messages.  Further, if a test is compiling more than one
> file, we'd want to see which compilation failed.
>
> Do you have a link where this was discussed?

Sorry for the late reply, i was out on vacation.

This was briefly discussed here: 
https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2016-11/msg00826.html

Simon and Pedro thought it would be better to simplify the message so as 
not to pollute the summary too much, and in order to have unique names 
that don't change between two runs on different machines.