From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca by simark.ca with LMTP id 0OyhBet4b2PkhhcAWB0awg (envelope-from ) for ; Sat, 12 Nov 2022 05:43:55 -0500 Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id 150571E124; Sat, 12 Nov 2022 05:43:55 -0500 (EST) Authentication-Results: simark.ca; dkim=pass (1024-bit key; secure) header.d=sourceware.org header.i=@sourceware.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=default header.b=eJRwHL3G; dkim-atps=neutral X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on simark.ca X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,RDNS_DYNAMIC,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 Received: from sourceware.org (ip-8-43-85-97.sourceware.org [8.43.85.97]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C6AA51E0D3 for ; Sat, 12 Nov 2022 05:43:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39554384BC3A for ; Sat, 12 Nov 2022 10:43:53 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 39554384BC3A DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org; s=default; t=1668249833; bh=nEY5EYYuTJ21TYSklkTV00ObKyk9WfOwU4QfXsNX/4s=; h=Date:Subject:To:References:In-Reply-To:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe:From:Reply-To: From; b=eJRwHL3GZVdNAkmM01qbobBH83Q87NfWfSffL26cYI8/a7nGow1548AuLwIaePNJ4 2Zi04zMubGzFHEaJgm9xayuA5U39WQjSy2X1MRRxniMqmW0ehIGkOogF0gHFAy2nxp nEyxbt7BGrQSPf/LLRDRE0DHPZ26kvSCBoCXqxuU= Received: from smtp-out2.suse.de (smtp-out2.suse.de [IPv6:2001:67c:2178:6::1d]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D37A33858039 for ; Sat, 12 Nov 2022 10:43:31 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org D37A33858039 Received: from imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de [192.168.254.74]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-521) server-digest SHA512) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-out2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CFF431F88F; Sat, 12 Nov 2022 10:43:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de [192.168.254.74]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-521) server-digest SHA512) (No client certificate requested) by imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B170913488; Sat, 12 Nov 2022 10:43:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dovecot-director2.suse.de ([192.168.254.65]) by imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de with ESMTPSA id /V0IKtJ4b2MbUgAAMHmgww (envelope-from ); Sat, 12 Nov 2022 10:43:30 +0000 Message-ID: <02a5830f-5208-6c33-8b15-47af5b517df5@suse.de> Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2022 11:43:30 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.2.2 Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] gdb: make "start" breakpoint inferior-specific Content-Language: en-US To: Simon Marchi , Simon Marchi , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <691c5a58-68ae-5fe9-2f3d-34fb7af69ad0@palves.net> <20221108212008.1792090-1-simon.marchi@efficios.com> <1c02e882-c19e-483e-e50c-634fbe282988@suse.de> <4c7b3e65-08a6-913a-8e0f-8d3812bbd005@efficios.com> <5d4c4f03-4aa5-cf36-cb4d-cf8293f247a1@suse.de> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: gdb-patches@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , From: Tom de Vries via Gdb-patches Reply-To: Tom de Vries Errors-To: gdb-patches-bounces+public-inbox=simark.ca@sourceware.org Sender: "Gdb-patches" On 11/11/22 20:03, Simon Marchi wrote: > Thanks. I think it's strange for these tests to emit an UNTESTED if > gdb_start_cmd fails. Clearly, something is wrong if that happens. I'll > send a patch that changes them to fail. > Yes, that's a good point. After thinking about this a bit, I've filed a PR for an overall revision of the untested usage in gdb testsuite ( https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29778 ). Thanks, - Tom