From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-44005-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 16188 invoked by alias); 6 May 2006 01:28:23 -0000
Received: (qmail 16170 invoked by uid 22791); 6 May 2006 01:28:22 -0000
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from eastrmmtao01.cox.net (HELO eastrmmtao01.cox.net) (68.230.240.38)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Sat, 06 May 2006 01:28:18 +0000
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([68.9.66.48]) by eastrmmtao01.cox.net           (InterMail vM.6.01.06.01 201-2131-130-101-20060113) with ESMTP           id <20060506012816.VBYA17255.eastrmmtao01.cox.net@localhost.localdomain>;           Fri, 5 May 2006 21:28:16 -0400
Received: from bob by localhost.localdomain with local (Exim 4.52) 	id 1FcBbD-0007p5-TM; Fri, 05 May 2006 21:28:47 -0400
Date: Sat, 06 May 2006 01:28:00 -0000
From: Bob Rossi <bob_rossi@cox.net>
To: Ulrich Weigand <uweigand@de.ibm.com>
Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix spurious mi-basics.exp failures
Message-ID: <20060506012847.GB25114@brasko.net>
References: <200605060119.k461JWLU010082@d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <200605060119.k461JWLU010082@d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2006-05/txt/msg00134.txt.bz2

On Sat, May 06, 2006 at 03:19:32AM +0200, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> I'm seeing some FAILs in the mi-basics test case.  They're apparently
> caused by the expected output regexps in some of the mi_gdb_test
> statements lacking the 'serial number' the MI output lines start with.
> 
> Most mi_gdb_test statments already contain that number, but the 202,
> 203, and 208 tests don't have it.  Those are exactly the tests that
> fail for me.  Adding the numbers fixes the test.

hmm, I would be surprised if that was the only reason those tests are
failing. Are you sure there isn't more to it? Are the commands
implemented yet properly?

Bob Rossi