From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7126 invoked by alias); 27 Sep 2003 01:05:45 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 7119 invoked from network); 27 Sep 2003 01:05:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 27 Sep 2003 01:05:45 -0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h8R15i124360 for ; Fri, 26 Sep 2003 21:05:44 -0400 Received: from pobox.corp.redhat.com (pobox.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.156]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h8R15ic22696; Fri, 26 Sep 2003 21:05:44 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain (vpn50-46.rdu.redhat.com [172.16.50.46]) by pobox.corp.redhat.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h8R15hTX010411; Fri, 26 Sep 2003 21:05:43 -0400 Received: (from kev@localhost) by localhost.localdomain (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h8R15bR28199; Fri, 26 Sep 2003 18:05:37 -0700 Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2003 01:05:00 -0000 From: Kevin Buettner Message-Id: <1030927010537.ZM28198@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: David Carlton "Re: [PATCH RFC] Fix break.exp optimization related failure" (Sep 26, 5:31pm) References: <1030927002610.ZM28054@localhost.localdomain> To: David Carlton , Kevin Buettner Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] Fix break.exp optimization related failure Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2003-09/txt/msg00596.txt.bz2 On Sep 26, 5:31pm, David Carlton wrote: > On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 17:26:11 -0700, Kevin Buettner said: > > > The changes to break.exp look significant, but are only line number > > changes. I added exactly 20 lines to break.c, so most line numbers > > increase by 20. Those that don't are either before or within the > > range of lines affected by my patch. > > Could you use gdb_get_line_number to get rid of the sensitivity on > line numbers? That's a good idea, yes. I'm withdrawing my patch for the time being. I just remembered that a number of other tests use break.c and I didn't update their line numbers too. Kevin