From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8665 invoked by alias); 9 Feb 2004 22:05:26 -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 8657 invoked from network); 9 Feb 2004 22:05:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO smtp10.atl.mindspring.net) (207.69.200.246) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 9 Feb 2004 22:05:26 -0000 Received: from user-119a90a.biz.mindspring.com ([66.149.36.10] helo=berman.michael-chastain.com) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 1AqJWh-0003Cv-00; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 17:05:12 -0500 Received: by berman.michael-chastain.com (Postfix, from userid 502) id 43B094B363; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 17:05:29 -0500 (EST) To: drow@mvista.com, mec.gnu@mindspring.com Subject: Re: [rfa/testsuite] gdb1250.exp: make 'break abort' work with new pending breakpoints Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Message-Id: <20040209220529.43B094B363@berman.michael-chastain.com> Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2004 22:05:00 -0000 From: mec.gnu@mindspring.com (Michael Elizabeth Chastain) X-SW-Source: 2004-02/txt/msg00212.txt.bz2 mec> This test is sensitive to the version of binutils because binutils HEAD mec> has a PLT optimization for shared library functions. drow> So it used to fail with binutils HEAD, right? "Used to" as in "has been failing since 2003-11-27 to 2004-02-09", yes. It was pr gdb/1470. Maybe it slipped off your radar screen. > - Should there be a version of gdb_breakpoint that answers yes to the > pending question? > - If so, should runto use it? Or should there be a version of runto > that does? Err, yeah. I suppose the right thing is to make gdb_breakpoint_with_pending $name $pendingp Then: proc gdb_breakpoint { name } { return gdb_breakpoint_with_pending "$name" "no" } I see 3 instance of "gdb_breakpoint exit" and they need to be investigated. On principle, same with "runto". I don't know what the right name is, either. But I do think that the the new functions should take a second parameter. Michael C