From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2921 invoked by alias); 6 May 2006 19:52:56 -0000 Received: (qmail 2909 invoked by uid 22791); 6 May 2006 19:52:55 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from nevyn.them.org (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31.1) with ESMTP; Sat, 06 May 2006 19:52:53 +0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.54) id 1FcSpP-0007W6-MP; Sat, 06 May 2006 15:52:35 -0400 Date: Sat, 06 May 2006 19:52:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Ulrich Weigand Cc: Bob Rossi , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix spurious mi-basics.exp failures Message-ID: <20060506195235.GA28874@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Ulrich Weigand , Bob Rossi , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20060506040741.GA14929@nevyn.them.org> <200605061657.k46GvXbh020454@d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200605061657.k46GvXbh020454@d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.8i X-IsSubscribed: yes 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/msg00150.txt.bz2 On Sat, May 06, 2006 at 06:57:33PM +0200, Ulrich Weigand wrote: > 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? Yes, it is. Thanks a lot. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery