From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8157 invoked by alias); 6 May 2006 16:57:40 -0000 Received: (qmail 8149 invoked by uid 22791); 6 May 2006 16:57:40 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mtagate1.de.ibm.com (HELO mtagate1.de.ibm.com) (195.212.29.150) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Sat, 06 May 2006 16:57:37 +0000 Received: from d12nrmr1607.megacenter.de.ibm.com (d12nrmr1607.megacenter.de.ibm.com [9.149.167.49]) by mtagate1.de.ibm.com (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k46GvYM8039316 for ; Sat, 6 May 2006 16:57:34 GMT Received: from d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com (d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com [9.149.165.228]) by d12nrmr1607.megacenter.de.ibm.com (8.12.10/NCO/VER6.8) with ESMTP id k46Gwn06147710 for ; Sat, 6 May 2006 18:58:49 +0200 Received: from d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.13.3) with ESMTP id k46GvXRL020457 for ; Sat, 6 May 2006 18:57:34 +0200 Received: from tuxmaker.boeblingen.de.ibm.com (tuxmaker.boeblingen.de.ibm.com [9.152.85.9]) by d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with SMTP id k46GvXbh020454; Sat, 6 May 2006 18:57:33 +0200 Message-Id: <200605061657.k46GvXbh020454@d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com> Received: by tuxmaker.boeblingen.de.ibm.com (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Sat, 6 May 2006 18:57:33 +0200 Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix spurious mi-basics.exp failures To: drow@false.org (Daniel Jacobowitz) Date: Sat, 06 May 2006 16:57:00 -0000 From: "Ulrich Weigand" Cc: bob_rossi@cox.net (Bob Rossi), gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-Reply-To: <20060506040741.GA14929@nevyn.them.org> from "Daniel Jacobowitz" at May 06, 2006 12:07:41 AM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL2] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-05/txt/msg00148.txt.bz2 Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > On Fri, May 05, 2006 at 10:02:37PM -0400, Bob Rossi wrote: > > I can't think of exactly how the anchoring would have just anything > > related to these tests. I'm just wondering, what fixed the > > relative/absolute path problem? > > My point is that before the anchoring, the "^done" pattern probably > matched "203^done" in the output. > > They're still broken if you configure with a relative path, which you > can see from your output: That sounds like a reasonable explanation. I've always had to configure with an absolute path, or else these tests would fail. However, since some time the tests fail even when configuring with an absolute path. The patch I'm proposing gets them back to passing in that case (with relative path they still fail). Is the patch OK then? Bye, Ulrich -- Dr. Ulrich Weigand Linux on zSeries Development Ulrich.Weigand@de.ibm.com