Re: [rfa/testsuite] gdb1250.exp: make 'break abort' work with new pending breakpoints

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com>]

On Mon, Feb 09, 2004 at 05:05:29PM -0500, Michael Chastain wrote:
> 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.

None of that reference was in your message, and I don't run tests with
binutils HEAD regularly...

> > - 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.

I suppose.  I don't much care either way though the new parameter seems
awkward to me - isn't the _with_pending in the name enough?

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer