This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH 2/4] introduce parallel mode
- From: Pedro Alves <palves at redhat dot com>
- To: Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Yao Qi <yao at codesourcery dot com>, gdb-patches at sourceware dot org
- Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2013 09:40:55 +0100
- Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] introduce parallel mode
- References: <1374073124-23602-1-git-send-email-tromey at redhat dot com> <1374073124-23602-3-git-send-email-tromey at redhat dot com> <51E7E27E dot 5030800 at codesourcery dot com> <87txjsc7mw dot fsf at fleche dot redhat dot com> <51E86A71 dot 3000301 at codesourcery dot com> <878v0lfb62 dot fsf at fleche dot redhat dot com>
On 08/01/2013 08:44 PM, Tom Tromey wrote:
>>>>>> "Yao" == Yao Qi <yao@codesourcery.com> writes:
>
> Yao> Probably, we can send the output to the log, for example
> Yao> inotify_[pid].log, and check whether there is something written into
> Yao> the log in the test somewhere. If there is, emit a FAIL, which would
> Yao> be more attractive, like:
>
> I am not sure about emitting a FAIL. There won't be a corresponding
> PASS. It would be more noticeable, which is a plus; but in the absence
> of a conflict it isn't clearly a FAIL-worthy bug -- even after my series
> we'll have a few of these.
I guess a WARNING could be a better fit:
warning "string number"
Declares detection of a minor error in the test case itself. warning writes
in the log files a message beginning with `WARNING', appending the argument string.
Use warning rather than error for cases (such as communication failure to be
followed by a retry) where the test case can recover from the error.
--
Pedro Alves