Re: [RFA/testsuite] Cleanup pending breakpoints

[Keith Seitz <keiths at redhat dot com>]

On 04/24/2013 07:35 AM, Pedro Alves wrote:
> Whenever you feel compelled to say "also" in a patch description,
> consider splitting the patch in two.  ;-)  Updating the documentation
> part could go first, and would be clearly an improvement.  Extending
> the interface could go afterwards, and that patch would then actually
> be clearer.

I now feel compelled to submit them separately. :-)

> > Comments/questions?
>
> I wonder whether "allow-pending" is the right option for the "pending" tests.
> As in, "allow" != "require".  I wonder whether we're losing test
> coverage in those cases?

Well, yes and no. From reading through all the tests, I think the 
"allow-pending" option is a bit underdefined/underterministic. Many of 
the tests that use it pretty much would fail miserably if a real 
breakpoint was set instead, yet "allow-pending" doesn't fail if this 
happens.

IMO gdb_breakpoint should set what was requested or FAIL, e.g., if 
allow-pending, ONLY pending breakpoint would produce a PASS.

Nonetheless, since we have it already, I have patches now which add a 
"pending" option to gdb_breakpoint, meaning that it *must* set a pending 
breakpoint. Anything else will FAIL.

Or I can mutate allow-pending to this new pending and eliminate the 
ambiguity that allow-pending introduced.

What would you prefer?
Keith