From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8636 invoked by alias); 29 Jul 2004 23:39:17 -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 8628 invoked from network); 29 Jul 2004 23:39:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO walton.kettenis.dyndns.org) (213.93.77.109) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 29 Jul 2004 23:39:16 -0000 Received: from elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org (elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org [192.168.0.2]) by walton.kettenis.dyndns.org (8.12.6p3/8.12.6) with ESMTP id i6TNcUJ8018609; Fri, 30 Jul 2004 01:38:30 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from kettenis@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org) Received: from elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org (8.12.6p3/8.12.6) with ESMTP id i6TNcTMA024584; Fri, 30 Jul 2004 01:38:29 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from kettenis@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org) Received: (from kettenis@localhost) by elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org (8.12.6p3/8.12.6/Submit) id i6TNcNNY024581; Fri, 30 Jul 2004 01:38:23 +0200 (CEST) Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2004 23:39:00 -0000 Message-Id: <200407292338.i6TNcNNY024581@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org> From: Mark Kettenis To: drow@false.org CC: mec.gnu@mindspring.com, jjohnstn@redhat.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: <20040729152517.GA7192@nevyn.them.org> (message from Daniel Jacobowitz on Thu, 29 Jul 2004 11:25:18 -0400) Subject: Re: [RFA]: threaded watchpoint test References: <4106A553.7010202@redhat.com> <20040727230053.GA31203@nevyn.them.org> <4106E42F.3010304@redhat.com> <20040727232634.GA32379@nevyn.them.org> <4106EF7A.nail46S11RRBB@mindspring.com> <20040729152517.GA7192@nevyn.them.org> X-SW-Source: 2004-07/txt/msg00477.txt.bz2 Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2004 11:25:18 -0400 From: Daniel Jacobowitz Sounds good to me. We'll probably want to clean up the other bit about using the board_info too; or... just recognize that we got a software watchpoint instead of a hardware one? Maybe not. It could be a bug to get a software watchpoint when we expect a hardware one. The question is whether we want to keep a separate list of "do we expect hardware watchpoints" in the testsuite. Hmm, I'm getting a bit frustrated that folks keep adding things to the testsuite that assume features that are not available on most things not i386 GNU/Linux. Why do we allow tests like this to be checked in if we know they produce massive fails on many systems? Mark