From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23702 invoked by alias); 9 Feb 2004 22:33:26 -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 23695 invoked from network); 9 Feb 2004 22:33:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 9 Feb 2004 22:33:24 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.30 #1 (Debian)) id 1AqJxs-0001wx-NW; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 17:33:16 -0500 Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2004 22:33:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Michael Elizabeth Chastain Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [rfa/testsuite] gdb1250.exp: make 'break abort' work with new pending breakpoints Message-ID: <20040209223316.GB3931@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Michael Elizabeth Chastain , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <20040209220529.43B094B363@berman.michael-chastain.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040209220529.43B094B363@berman.michael-chastain.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2004-02/txt/msg00216.txt.bz2 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