Re: [PATCH 1/3] add testcases for function definitions

["Zhou, Wenjian/åæå" <zhouwj-fnst at cn dot fujitsu dot com>]

On 11/11/2015 01:34 AM, Josh Stone wrote:
> On 11/09/2015 11:06 PM, "Zhou, Wenjian/åæå" wrote:
> > On 11/10/2015 10:50 AM, "Zhou, Wenjian/åæå" wrote:
> > > On 11/10/2015 10:31 AM, Josh Stone wrote:
> > > > On 11/09/2015 06:10 PM, "Zhou, Wenjian/åæå" wrote:
> > > > > To make sure nothing comes, we have to modify all cases which use the
> > > > > stap_run. I don't think it's a good idea that modifying the cases which
> > > > > are working well.
> > > >
> > > > If my probe-final-"EOF" idea works, then we can implement that entirely
> > > > in stap_run, without modifying any testcases.
> > >
> > > Eh, if it works, I think the "{5}" won't be needed.
> > > But I doubt whether it will introduce errors to some cases.
> > > I will think more about it.
> >
> > It works, but also has some side effects.
> > It is better not to affect the cases which are working well, I think.
>
> What are those side effects?

It will lead to some cases error.
For example:
In case "div0", the probe will be exit with error.
So the expected "EOF" will never be got.

Another example:
In case "proc_by_pid", if "EOF" is added, another "\r\n" will be needed
in the output_string.

And there are a lot of such problems.
I don't think probe-final-"EOF" is needed, for it won't help much, though
each error it introduces can be fixed easily.

--
Thanks
Zhou