From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22796 invoked by alias); 26 Mar 2002 01:11:05 -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 22788 invoked from network); 26 Mar 2002 01:11:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (128.2.145.6) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 26 Mar 2002 01:11:04 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 16pfUS-0007XP-00; Mon, 25 Mar 2002 20:11:08 -0500 Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 17:11:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: fnf@redhat.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Your patch to list.exp Message-ID: <20020325201108.A28503@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: fnf@redhat.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23i X-SW-Source: 2002-03/txt/msg00478.txt.bz2 I just saw this on gdb-cvs. Was it ever on gdb-patches? I don't recall seeing it at least. Is it actually correct if you have debugging information for _start available? If we connect and are in a known line, presumably we will list there instead. revision 1.5 date: 2002/03/26 00:36:07; author: fnf; state: Exp; lines: +2 -7 2002-03-25 Fred Fish * gdb.base/list.exp: This test works on remote targets so remove the short circuit for remote targets. Update copyright. ---------------------------- revision 1.4 date: 2002/02/14 06:25:18; author: drow; state: Exp; lines: +1 -1 2002-02-14 Daniel Jacobowitz * gdb.base/a2-run.exp: Check for a remote target properly. * gdb.base/annota1.exp: Likewise. * gdb.base/list.exp: Likewise. * gdb.base/reread.exp: Likewise. * gdb.base/scope.exp: Likewise. * gdb.base/shlib-call.exp: Likewise. * gdb.base/term.exp: Likewise. * gdb.c++/annota2.exp: Likewise. -- Daniel Jacobowitz Carnegie Mellon University MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer