From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11414 invoked by alias); 21 Oct 2004 03:56:07 -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 11175 invoked from network); 21 Oct 2004 03:56:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO takamaka.act-europe.fr) (142.179.108.108) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 21 Oct 2004 03:56:06 -0000 Received: by takamaka.act-europe.fr (Postfix, from userid 507) id EB3A347D9C; Wed, 20 Oct 2004 20:56:05 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 03:56:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA/testsuite/ada] Refine expected output of start command Message-ID: <20041021035605.GQ21300@gnat.com> References: <20041021024914.GO21300@gnat.com> <20041021031426.GA21735@nevyn.them.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20041021031426.GA21735@nevyn.them.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-SW-Source: 2004-10/txt/msg00353.txt.bz2 > Actually, it's been failing for me for a maybe related reason: > > (gdb) start > Breakpoint 1 at 0x8048ad0: file b~null_record.adb, line 99. > Starting program: /opt/src/binutils/x86-as/gdb/testsuite/gdb.ada/null_record > main (argc=1, argv=(system.address) 0xbffff524, envp=(system.address) 0xbffff52c) at b~null_record.adb:99 > 99 Ensure_Reference : System.Address := > Ada_Main_Program_Name'Address; > (gdb) PASS: gdb.ada/null_record.exp: start > ptype empty > type = function return int > (gdb) FAIL: gdb.ada/null_record.exp: ptype on null record Hmmm, no I don't think it's the same reason. And the test passes for me. Could you do an experiment for me, and tell me what the language is after you load the executable? It should be auto,ada. Same after you've done the start. Of maybe you could send me separately your executable, so I can take a look... > > 2004-10-20 Joel Brobecker > > > > * gdb.ada/null_record.exp: Check where we stopped after > > sending the start command, instead of where the associated > > temporary breakpoint was inserted. > > > > This causes the "start" test above to FAIL for now. But the fix for > > this should be available soon. > > > > OK to commit? (I verified that this PASSes again once I apply my fix) > > This is OK. Thanks, committed. -- Joel