From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3799 invoked by alias); 11 Feb 2004 01:28:37 -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 3789 invoked from network); 11 Feb 2004 01:28:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 11 Feb 2004 01:28:36 -0000 Received: from int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (nat-pool-rdu-dmz.redhat.com [172.16.52.200] (may be forged)) by mx1.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i1B1SZb04875 for ; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 20:28:35 -0500 Received: from potter.sfbay.redhat.com (potter.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.27.15]) by int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i1B1SYM05737; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 20:28:34 -0500 Received: from 192.168.1.129 (vpn50-29.rdu.redhat.com [172.16.50.29]) by potter.sfbay.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i1B1SWX12632; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 17:28:32 -0800 From: Fred Fish Reply-To: fnf@redhat.com To: Daniel Jacobowitz , fnf@redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA] Fix several problems with the gdb.arch/gdb1291.exp test Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 01:28:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.5.4 Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <200402101807.37718.fnf@ninemoons.com> <20040211011715.GA11122@nevyn.them.org> In-Reply-To: <20040211011715.GA11122@nevyn.them.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200402101828.30369.fnf@ninemoons.com> X-SW-Source: 2004-02/txt/msg00274.txt.bz2 On Tuesday 10 February 2004 18:17, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > Sorry, not OK. There are at least three problems: All excellent points, as usual. Good example of why it's important to have reviews of all patches. :-) > - You've added a kfail pattern for PR 1291 that doesn't match the > description in the PR; the less than 256 bytes case shouldn't > be a kfail. Another oops. That piece of the cloned test wasn't meant to be included. > I recommend writing the whole test in assembly instead; this is > gdb.arch, after all. We don't want to be sensitive to GCC bugs. That sounds like the best solution. Back to the drawing board... -Fred