From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29983 invoked by alias); 1 Dec 2003 15:46:29 -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 29968 invoked from network); 1 Dec 2003 15:46:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (66.30.197.194) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 1 Dec 2003 15:46:28 -0000 Received: by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 469) id 817DF1A42DB; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 10:46:28 -0500 (EST) From: Elena Zannoni MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <16331.25172.341946.691722@localhost.redhat.com> Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2003 15:46:00 -0000 To: fnf@ninemoons.com Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] Outwit compiler dead code elimination in break.exp test In-Reply-To: <200312010829.17695.fnf@ninemoons.com> References: <20031130010728.GA26601@nevyn.them.org> <200312010045.hB10jRfd009645@fred.ninemoons.com> <16331.22272.699163.648252@localhost.redhat.com> <200312010829.17695.fnf@ninemoons.com> X-SW-Source: 2003-12/txt/msg00008.txt.bz2 Fred Fish writes: > > > Emit bp_locationNN markers in pass > > > and fail messages instead of line numbers. > > > > Why this? The line numbers were not really hardcoded. > > Generally I believe you should not emit values in the pass/fail > messages that are subject to change, such as addresses, line numbers, > etc. This way you can diff successive summary files without seeing > spurious differences. > > However I can revert that part of the patch if that is an issue. If the pass/fil messages are unique within the .exp files, then ok. > > -Fred >