From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10230 invoked by alias); 19 Feb 2008 20:04:29 -0000 Received: (qmail 10213 invoked by uid 22791); 19 Feb 2008 20:04:27 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from viper.snap.net.nz (HELO viper.snap.net.nz) (202.37.101.8) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Tue, 19 Feb 2008 20:03:56 +0000 Received: from kahikatea.snap.net.nz (165.62.255.123.dynamic.snap.net.nz [123.255.62.165]) by viper.snap.net.nz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 913333DA4D6; Wed, 20 Feb 2008 09:03:53 +1300 (NZDT) Received: by kahikatea.snap.net.nz (Postfix, from userid 1000) id B0DAD8FC6D; Wed, 20 Feb 2008 09:03:40 +1300 (NZDT) From: Nick Roberts MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <18363.13851.966889.923773@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 20:04:00 -0000 To: Joel Brobecker Cc: Vladimir Prus , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: (gdb-6.8) Discard breakpoint address if shared library is unloaded In-Reply-To: <20080219190143.GH3713@adacore.com> References: <20080204214226.GF20922@adacore.com> <20080207063817.GA3907@adacore.com> <18347.45621.630420.453287@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> <200802080942.29622.ghost@cs.msu.su> <18348.1691.478013.310214@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> <20080214214246.GC3713@adacore.com> <18357.3708.628053.809241@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> <20080219190143.GH3713@adacore.com> X-Mailer: VM 7.19 under Emacs 22.1.90.4 X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2008-02/txt/msg00320.txt.bz2 Joel Brobecker writes: > Nick, > > > 2008-02-15 Nick Roberts > > > > * breakpoint.c (print_one_breakpoint_location): Revert Enb field > > to old format. Discard breakpoint address if shared library is > > unloaded. > > (breakpoint_1): Adjust formatting of table header accordingly. > > The patch looks fine, but I assumed that you had run the testsuite > before sending it. From my end, it looks like you didn't, and I find > this quite disappointing. Based on Volodya's email, I ran the testsuite > myself (which I really shouldn't have to), and discovered that your > patch causes ~20 new failures, not just the 3 that Volodya discovered. > > Your patch cannot go in until the failures are investigated and fixed. > > Please make sure to always confirm in your submissions that you did > run the testsuite, mentioning which architecture it was run on, and > also confirm that it did not introduce any regression. I did run the whole testsuite on the first patch that I submitted which, as you pointed out, was missing some detail which I had somehow lost since last November, but not the amendment to that patch. You might find it disappointing that I've not rerun the testsuite but I find it disappointing that I have had to submit complete patches for code, doumentation and testsuite to revert changes which I pointed out broke things for Emacs. -- Nick http://www.inet.net.nz/~nickrob