This is the mail archive of the gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com 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] |
Michael, Ok here is another attempt, let me know what you think of this one. I added the change log to the begning of the attached file, and I am pasting the same below. 2004-08-26 Manoj Iyer <manjo@austin.ibm.com * lib/gdb.exp (gdb_check_debuginfo): New procedure * gdb.gdb/complaints.exp: check if gdb has debug information. * gdb.gdb/observer.exp: check if gdb has debug information. * gdb.gdb/selftest.exp: check if gdb has debug information. * gdb.gdb/xfullpath.exp: check if gdb has debug information. Thanks ----- Manjo +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ + Cognito ergo sum + +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ On Wed, 25 Aug 2004, Michael Chastain wrote: > Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org> wrote: > > That's not the same as what you've done. gdb_file_cmd should not > > always fail for objects without debugging information, since there are > > other tests that work OK without it. This only applies to the gdb.gdb/ > > tests. > > Damn, I noticed this, but I got so caught up in the procedural criticism, > I forgot to mention it. > > Daniel is right; gdb_file_cmd is not a good place to test for this > unconditionally. You have to look in gdb.gdb/*.exp and find a good > way so that you make this check only for gdb.gdb/*.exp. > > Michael >
Attachment:
gdb.testsuite.2004-08-26.patch
Description: testsuite patch
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |