[PATCH] gdb: tests: mark async unsupported dynamically
Pedro Alves
palves@redhat.com
Thu Jun 25 13:38:00 GMT 2015
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
More information about the Gdb-patches
mailing list