This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [RFA/testsuite] Remove all remaining gdb_suppress_entire_file
- From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at false dot org>
- To: Mark Kettenis <mark dot kettenis at xs4all dot nl>, brobecker at adacore dot com, gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2006 15:00:52 -0400
- Subject: Re: [RFA/testsuite] Remove all remaining gdb_suppress_entire_file
- References: <20060721002619.GE1499@adacore.com> <200607212205.k6LM5sNC003058@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <20060721232842.GA30038@nevyn.them.org>
On Fri, Jul 21, 2006 at 07:28:42PM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 22, 2006 at 12:05:54AM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> > > Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 17:26:19 -0700
> > > From: Joel Brobecker <brobecker@adacore.com>
> > >
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > As discussed in the following message:
> > >
> > > http://www.sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2006-06/msg00347.html
> > >
> > > The attached patch removes all remaining instances of
> > > gdb_suppress_entire_file, and replaces them with a call to untested
> > > followed by a return.
> >
> > Hi Joel,
> >
> > Most of these are checking compile failures. Are we still seeing some
> > sort of ERROR about that in the testsuite output, or just UNTESTED?
>
> gdb_suppress_entire_file used to issue a WARNING. There was never
> supposed to be any ERROR - they were caused by cascading failures,
> DejaGNU getting confused, and usually the first symptom was a fake
> "timeout" while trying to load a file into GDB. And that generated an
> ERROR.
>
> After Joel's patch I believe we'll only get an UNTESTED. If you'd
> rather we could leave the warning?
Hi Mark,
Did you have any opinion on this? One way or another I'd like to get
this patch squared away.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery