From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27174 invoked by alias); 1 Dec 2003 16:55:15 -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 27160 invoked from network); 1 Dec 2003 16:55:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO barry.mail.mindspring.net) (207.69.200.25) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 1 Dec 2003 16:55:14 -0000 Received: from user-119a90a.biz.mindspring.com ([66.149.36.10] helo=berman.michael-chastain.com) by barry.mail.mindspring.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 1AQrKK-0001gY-00; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 11:55:12 -0500 Received: by berman.michael-chastain.com (Postfix, from userid 502) id 7C2524B365; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 11:55:15 -0500 (EST) To: fnf@ninemoons.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] Outwit compiler dead code elimination in break.exp test Cc: ezannoni@redhat.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Message-Id: <20031201165515.7C2524B365@berman.michael-chastain.com> Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2003 16:55:00 -0000 From: mec.gnu@mindspring.com (Michael Elizabeth Chastain) X-SW-Source: 2003-12/txt/msg00013.txt.bz2 ff> The messages will now be something like: ff> PASS: gdb.base/break.exp: set to-be-silent break bp_location1 ff> instead of: ff> PASS: gdb.base/break.exp: set to-be-silent break 83 Mmmmm, a test suite discussion. Can I throw two cents in? :) Either message looks fine to me. It's important that the message be unique within the test script, and either message would be unique within the test script. And it's important that the message not change from run to run, and "break 83" does not change from run to run unless someone actually changes the test script. So "break 83" wasn't a big problem but "break bp_location1" appeals more to me esthetically. Michael C