This is the mail archive of the gdb-patches@sourceware.org mailing list for the GDB project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [RFA] Make the prec support signal better[0/4]


Joel Brobecker wrote:
Attached is a test case for it -- it will have a number of
XFAILS without this patch, which will become PASSES with the patch.

I looked at the testcase, and noticed a couple of things:


# Copyright 1995, 1996, 1997, 1999, 2007, 2008, 2009

I was surprised by the copyright years, but I then read the contents of the testcase that mentions alpha-osf3. That's when I realized that this file is inspired by sigall.exp... I supposed that this was the right thing to do, although it probably does not matter because I believe that these headers are actually not legally significant.

Dumb mistake -- correct diagnosis. I'll fix the (C) date.


if [target_info exists gdb,nosignals] {
    verbose "Skipping sigall-reverse.exp because of nosignals."
    continue
}

I wonder why we do a continue here, whereas we do a return elsewhere:


if ![target_info exists gdb,can_reverse] {
    return
}

I wish we had a cookbook for writing testcases, I always forget what we're supposed to do :-(. Anyone knows if this is significant?

I totally have no clue what the difference is. But I'll change it to be locally consistent.

	send_gdb "continue\n"
	if { $thissig == "IO" } {
	    setup_xfail "i*86-pc-linuxoldld-gnu" "i*86-pc-linuxaout-gnu"
	}
	gdb_expect {
[...]

IMO, the send_gdb/gdb_expect sequences in this script should be converted
to using test_gdb_multiple. I'd rather we avoid send_gdb/gdb_expect
if we can.

Sigh. Let me get back to you on that...



Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]