From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3399 invoked by alias); 27 Jul 2005 22:09:59 -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 2874 invoked by uid 22791); 27 Jul 2005 22:09:27 -0000 Received: from viper.snap.net.nz (HELO viper.snap.net.nz) (202.37.101.8) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.30-dev) with ESMTP; Wed, 27 Jul 2005 22:09:27 +0000 Received: from farnswood.snap.net.nz (p65-tnt2.snap.net.nz [202.124.108.65]) by viper.snap.net.nz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D0AA5F5C69; Thu, 28 Jul 2005 10:09:24 +1200 (NZST) Received: by farnswood.snap.net.nz (Postfix, from userid 501) id 18F7F62A99; Wed, 27 Jul 2005 23:11:42 +0100 (BST) From: Nick Roberts MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <17128.1691.223360.139122@farnswood.snap.net.nz> Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 22:09:00 -0000 To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: Bob Rossi , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: PATCH: tests for MI commands In-Reply-To: <20050727214911.GA21072@nevyn.them.org> References: <17117.55351.716393.763492@farnswood.snap.net.nz> <20050724211946.GB798@nevyn.them.org> <17126.51233.887175.402254@farnswood.snap.net.nz> <20050727002721.GA27261@nevyn.them.org> <17126.62115.642102.742744@farnswood.snap.net.nz> <20050727035503.GA30670@nevyn.them.org> <17127.29797.456624.592127@farnswood.snap.net.nz> <20050727125049.GB16612@white> <17127.62451.799405.939345@farnswood.snap.net.nz> <20050727214911.GA21072@nevyn.them.org> X-SW-Source: 2005-07/txt/msg00213.txt.bz2 > > I think that we should either remove them (my preference) or rewrite > > parts of GDB so that the different MI levels act as independent > > interpreters (which currently I am certainly not going to offer to do). > > If they were independent then clearly changing the behaviour of the > > current level, as I have just done, wouldn't break the tests for level 2. > > Incorrect. Please read again my description of how you broke the mi2 > tests. It has nothing to do with your changes to the MI output and > everything to do with your changes to the test cases. Yes, you're right, I was too eager and my analysis is wrong for this case. My original point, that separate mi2 tests are not worthwhile, still stands, however. Nick