From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21793 invoked by alias); 24 Feb 2004 17:49:21 -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 21783 invoked from network); 24 Feb 2004 17:49:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 24 Feb 2004 17:49:20 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.30 #1 (Debian)) id 1AvggF-0008TK-KP; Tue, 24 Feb 2004 12:49:15 -0500 Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 17:49:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Andrew Cagney Cc: David Carlton , Anthony Green , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [commit/java] Work around java/1565 in jmisc.exp Message-ID: <20040224174915.GA32521@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Andrew Cagney , David Carlton , Anthony Green , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <403B77DB.2010401@gnu.org> <403B8E21.3020100@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <403B8E21.3020100@gnu.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2004-02/txt/msg00690.txt.bz2 On Tue, Feb 24, 2004 at 12:47:13PM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote: > >On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 11:12:11 -0500, Andrew Cagney said: > > > > > >>>This patch modifies jmisc.exp to work around the very very long > >>>standing bug java/1565 (just that no one thought to report it?). > > > > > >It's bug java/1164 (with a corresponding GDB PR). As Michael pointed > >out, one of the other Java tests already does what you want. It would > >be good for this test to be KFAILed, though, given that you're the > >second person to have proposed that change in the last two or three > >months. > > No, "jmain.exp" does what I want - test for three potential bugs. The > old "jmisc.exp" really isn't doing anything other than causing cascading > failures :-( > > BTW, I looked at KFAILing "jmisc.exp" but dropped the idea like a hot > potato - the FAIL is burried deep in the depths of "runto" :-( All you'd need then would be a setup_kfail, no? Sure, you don't get to match the explicit failing pattern that way... -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer