Re: [_Complex test 2/4] _Complex type in varargs.exp

[Pedro Alves <pedro at codesourcery dot com>]

On Monday 23 May 2011 05:08:58, Yao Qi wrote:
> On 05/20/2011 11:37 PM, Pedro Alves wrote:
> > Did you try setup_kfail?  See below.  The way you have things
> > doesn't catch the internal error case because that is matched
> > within gdb_test_multiple itself.  You could also check the return
> > of gdb_test_multiple to see if an internal match happened, but
> > that's more complicated than setup_kfail.
> > 
> 
> I see.  It has been mentioned in the comment to proc gdb_test_multiple
> 
> # Returns:
> #    1 if the test failed, according to a built-in failure pattern
> #    0 if only user-supplied patterns matched
> #   -1 if there was an internal error.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> >> > x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu:
> >> > KFAIL: gdb.base/varargs.exp: print find_max_float_real(4, fc1, fc2, fc3,
> >> > fc4) (PRMS: gdb/12790)
> >> > KFAIL: gdb.base/varargs.exp: print find_max_double_real(4, dc1, dc2,
> >> > dc3, dc4) (PRMS: gdb/12790)
> >> > FAIL: gdb.base/varargs.exp: print find_max_long_double_real(4, ldc1,
> >> > ldc2, ldc3, ldc4) (GDB internal error)
> >> > 
> >     setup_kfail gdb/12776 "i?86-*-*"
> >     setup_kfail gdb/12790 "x86_64-*-*"
> >     setup_kfail gdb/12791 "arm*-*-*"
> >     set test "print find_max_long_double_real(4, ldc1, ldc2, ldc3, ldc4)"
> >     gdb_test_multiple $test $test {
> > 	-re ".*= 4 \\+ 4 \\* I.*${gdb_prompt} $" {
> > 	    pass $test
> > 	}
> >     }
> 
> This is exactly what I did when I was writing this patch.  However, the
> wrong PR number is got in KFAIL result, like this,
> 
> KFAIL: gdb.base/varargs.exp: print find_max_long_double_real(4, ldc1,
> ldc2, ldc3, ldc4) (PRMS: gdb/12791)
> 
> I was running test case on i686-pc-linux-gnu, but the PR number
> displayed was arm's PR.  Source code of proc setup_kfail shows that PR
> number is saved in kfail_prms unconditionally.  Of course, only the PR
> in last call of setup_kfail is saved.  This is a limitation of
> setup_kfail, IMO.  

Huh, indeed.

> I gave up on this direction then.
> 
> In order to overcome this limitation, a new proc setup_kfail_for_target
> is added in lib/gdb.exp, which only call setup_kfail if istarget returns
> true.

Okay.

> 
> > Maybe you can even convert the gdb_test_multiple's to gdb_test that way.
> > (You could also put the setup_kfails in a procedure to not need to 
> > repeat them everywhere).
> 
> Since we are using setup_kfail, we can surely convert gdb_test_multiple
> to gdb_test.  I don't put setup_kfails in a proc, because, KFAILs on x86
> are different from KFAILs on arm/x86_64.
> 
> In my new patch, the internal-error on x86_64 is KFAIL'ed.
> 
> KFAIL: gdb.base/varargs.exp: print find_max_long_double_real(4, ldc1,
> ldc2, ldc3, ldc4) (GDB internal error) (PRMS: gdb/12790)

Looks good to me.

-- 
Pedro Alves