From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27556 invoked by alias); 21 Feb 2002 21:37:08 -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 27085 invoked from network); 21 Feb 2002 21:36:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO duracef.shout.net) (204.253.184.12) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 21 Feb 2002 21:36:56 -0000 Received: (from mec@localhost) by duracef.shout.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g1LLatO29595; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 15:36:55 -0600 Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 13:37:00 -0000 From: Michael Elizabeth Chastain Message-Id: <200202212136.g1LLatO29595@duracef.shout.net> To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, jimb@redhat.com Subject: Re: RFA: parse output from `info sources' one filename at a time X-SW-Source: 2002-02/txt/msg00607.txt.bz2 Jim Blandy writes: > This eliminates an `ERROR' when the test is run under Linux. The > output from `info sources' includes all the shared library source > files, making it so long that it overflows Expect's buffer. Interestingly, I don't get any ERROR from gdb.asm/asm-source.exp on native i686-pc-linux-gnu. My test script may be different from yours. More likely, my toolchain may be different from yours. I am using stock tcl 8.3.4, expect 5.33.0, dejagnu 1.4.2 compiled from source (not whatever version comes with my Red Hat Linux). Don't get me wrong, I'm all in favor of the patch. It's good for the testsuite to be "liberal in what it expects". I just want to note that there are several different versions of expect and dejagnu in the world and their differences are materializing in test results. I have a side project to package up my "standard gnu toolchain" scripts. They start by downloading 100 megabytes of pristine tarballs and then build from scratch. Michael C