From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9951 invoked by alias); 4 Feb 2002 16:39:21 -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 9812 invoked from network); 4 Feb 2002 16:39:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO fw-cam.cambridge.arm.com) (193.131.176.3) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 4 Feb 2002 16:39:18 -0000 Received: by fw-cam.cambridge.arm.com; id QAA04557; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 16:39:14 GMT Received: from unknown(172.16.1.2) by fw-cam.cambridge.arm.com via smap (V5.5) id xma004182; Mon, 4 Feb 02 16:38:56 GMT Received: from cam-mail2.cambridge.arm.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cam-admin0.cambridge.arm.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA04681; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 16:38:56 GMT Received: from sun18.cambridge.arm.com (sun18.cambridge.arm.com [172.16.2.18]) by cam-mail2.cambridge.arm.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA11192; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 16:38:55 GMT Message-Id: <200202041638.QAA11192@cam-mail2.cambridge.arm.com> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0.2 2/24/98 To: Daniel Jacobowitz cc: Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com, Andrew Cagney , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Reply-To: Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com Organization: ARM Ltd. X-Telephone: +44 1223 400569 (direct+voicemail), +44 1223 400400 (switchbd) X-Fax: +44 1223 400410 X-Address: ARM Ltd., 110 Fulbourn Road, Cherry Hinton, Cambridge CB1 9NJ. X-Url: http://www.arm.com/ Subject: Re: [patch] Zap remaining calls to error_begin() In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 04 Feb 2002 10:27:26 EST." <20020204102726.A4464@nevyn.them.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2002 08:39:00 -0000 From: Richard Earnshaw X-SW-Source: 2002-02/txt/msg00078.txt.bz2 > I'm not sure if this is related, but I'm now seeing a regression in the > > testsuite for an arm-netbsd target: > > > > FAIL: gdb.c++/annota2.exp: annotate-quit > > Try running the test a couple dozen times, and see what happens, > please? > > This test fails spuriously, or perhaps passes spuriously. I think > there's something actually wrong with GDB's signal handling in relation > to the way expect invokes us. Hmm, yes you're right. I've run it a couple of dozen times with no failures, so it looks like the bogon was in the original run. I'll keep an eye on it, so see if it throws another wobbly at some point. R.