This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: RFA (testsuite, mi testsuite): Support testing gdbserver
- From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at mvista dot com>
- To: Elena Zannoni <ezannoni at redhat dot com>
- Cc: gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com, fnasser at redhat dot com, mec at shout dot net,cagney at redhat dot com
- Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 15:53:16 -0400
- Subject: Re: RFA (testsuite, mi testsuite): Support testing gdbserver
- References: <20020709153440.GA28770@nevyn.them.org> <email@example.com>
On Thu, Jul 11, 2002 at 12:20:44PM -0400, Elena Zannoni wrote:
> Daniel Jacobowitz writes:
> > If this patch looks familiar, it's not because you're imagining things.
> > I've posted it I believe four times now, and filed a PR about it (it's
> > gdb/440), and never gotten a single comment. I'd appreciate it if one of
> > our busy maintainers could look over it, as I'm tired of carrying it around
> > locally. Is either our primary testsuite maintainer or his stand-in still
> > here? The last thing I saw from Fernando was his statement on May 1st that
> > he'd be gone until the 21st, and the last thing I saw from Michael Chastain
> > was on June 1st...
> > The changes in this patch:
> > - Run gdbserver, a target binary, on the target instead of the host
> I think this is not mine to review. However, if you think it's ok for
> gdbserver and it doesn't break anything else, I think it could go
> in. But it would need to be a separate patch. I assume this is
> independent on mi being involved, right?
Yep. I'll split it out, sorry about that.
> > - Load mi-support.exp from lib/gdb.exp instead of from the MI tests,
> > so that config/* have a chance to override it.
> > - Add support for MI in config/gdbserver.exp and config/monitor.exp,
> > which required some substantial changes in mi-support.exp.
> I see your problem. Yes, it's a ugly one. I have thought of an
> alternative approach. The thing I like about mi-support.exp is that it
> is self contained, and all the bits for the running the testsuite with
> MI are in there. With your change, the mi support procedures start
> appearing in other files, and basically having an mi-support.exp file
> becomes useless. Instead of putting MI support into the gdbserver and
> monitor files, could we do the opposite: i.e. add mi specific
> gdbserver variants in mi-support.exp? The problem would remain
> of how to know that we are running gdbserver, instead of, say, the
> sim. In mi-support.exp the procedure mi_gdb_load would need to know
> that. What if we do the same trick that sid uses? I.e. identify a
> unique procedure name in the gdbserver.exp file, so that you know it
> has been loaded and then add another case to the if-else in
> mi_gdb_load to call a mi_gdbserver_load function, which would be in
> something like
> if [info procs gdbserver_gdb_load] then call mi_gdbserver_gdb_load
> The mi_gdb_target_cmd could also be included in mi-support.exp.
> Of course you would have to add the definition of a gdbserver.exp
> specific procedure.
> This way the mi support would remain isolated, and only be used when
> running mi tests. And we wouldn't need to touch any of the mi test files.
> I like the breaking of the mi_gdb_load function into 2 functions.
> It makes it much cleaner.
I don't really like this idea... let me try to explain why.
- First of all, the mi-support code is present when running non-MI
tests too anyway. DejaGNU runs every test in the same evaluator
context. This means that one test can affect a later test. I
personally think this reeks of bad design... search the archives for
dbx.exp for an example of the problems this can cause.
- Second, right now all of the target-specific code is in config/ in
its own little files, in principal. Apparently some of the SID code
has migrated out to mi-support.exp, but there's an awful lot of other
targets in config/, and cluttering mi-support.exp with support code for
each of them seems like a really bad idea. Most of them just punt to
monitor.exp, but there's gdbserver, netware, sid, sim, slite, sparclet,
The fact that these need to parse GDB messages and are incompatible
with MI suggests to me that we desperately need another abstraction
somewhere, but keeping the GDB support code for a particular target
isolated to that target seems like the path of reasonable segmentation.
In short, I believe that the benefits of keeping target monitor code
isolated outweigh the benefits of keeping MI (a fundamental part of the
GDB that we're testing, and growing more so) isolated.
> (what is use_default_mi_gdb_load that you mention in the ChangeLog?)
A remnant from a different approach; removed.
Daniel Jacobowitz Carnegie Mellon University
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer