From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6884 invoked by alias); 30 Aug 2005 02:55:39 -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 6834 invoked by uid 22791); 30 Aug 2005 02:55:36 -0000 Received: from nevyn.them.org (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.30-dev) with ESMTP; Tue, 30 Aug 2005 02:55:36 +0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.52) id 1E9wHe-0004nv-Mp for gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com; Mon, 29 Aug 2005 22:55:34 -0400 Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 12:50:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: MI testsuite mi-until.exp failures Message-ID: <20050830025534.GB16646@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <20050817031718.GA13485@white> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050817031718.GA13485@white> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.8i X-SW-Source: 2005-08/txt/msg00252.txt.bz2 On Tue, Aug 16, 2005 at 11:17:18PM -0400, Bob Rossi wrote: > Hi, > > Using gcc 4.0, I get error's with the mi-until.exp and mi2-until.exp > testcases. The first issue is trivial. > > The file mi-var-child.c needed '#include ' in order for the > file to compile because of memset. Is string.h appropriate for this? I > know memset can be in different headers on different systems. is fine. I do these things mostly by example: for instance call-ar-st.c already includes it unconditionally so it must be OK for the testsuite, on targets anyone's cared about lately. This bit is OK, feel free to commit it on its own. > Also, for some reason, the line number was different. So, either it's OK > for the line number to be different and this patch is OK, or it's not OK > for the line number to be different and this patch is bad. Any ideas? Well that doesn't tell me much, and I hate decoding regexps to figure this stuff out. What's the command? Where's it stopping? Where's it supposed to stop? Does the behavior seem reasonable to you? I seem to recall that this sparked some contention about the correct behavior of "until", which we discussed on gdb@ some months ago. That may have been a different bug, though. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery, LLC