From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27584 invoked by alias); 3 Jan 2003 21:45:25 -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 27574 invoked from network); 3 Jan 2003 21:45:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO duracef.shout.net) (204.253.184.12) by 209.249.29.67 with SMTP; 3 Jan 2003 21:45:24 -0000 Received: (from mec@localhost) by duracef.shout.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h03Lj3Q19841; Fri, 3 Jan 2003 15:45:03 -0600 Date: Fri, 03 Jan 2003 21:45:00 -0000 From: Michael Elizabeth Chastain Message-Id: <200301032145.h03Lj3Q19841@duracef.shout.net> To: drow@mvista.com Subject: Re: RFC: gdb.c++/main-falloff.exp (a new KFAIL) Cc: carlton@math.stanford.edu, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com X-SW-Source: 2003-01/txt/msg00093.txt.bz2 As David C mentioned, gdb_test_multiple cannot replace send_gdb/gdb_expect, because there is no room in the syntax to add TCL code blocks which some tests use to check compiler version, target version. > If it's bugging you that bad I'll do it or something similar tomorrow > morning. That would be great. But: is it okay with you if we de-couple these things and proceed with the KFAIL bacchanal? Michael C pushy new yorker