From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14682 invoked by alias); 23 Jun 2006 03:35:36 -0000 Received: (qmail 14673 invoked by uid 22791); 23 Jun 2006 03:35:36 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from nile.gnat.com (HELO nile.gnat.com) (205.232.38.5) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 23 Jun 2006 03:35:34 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-nile.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E15A748CE81 for ; Thu, 22 Jun 2006 23:35:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from nile.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (nile.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 03878-01-2 for ; Thu, 22 Jun 2006 23:35:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from takamaka.act-europe.fr (s142-179-108-108.bc.hsia.telus.net [142.179.108.108]) by nile.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B17EA48CE09 for ; Thu, 22 Jun 2006 23:35:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: by takamaka.act-europe.fr (Postfix, from userid 507) id 4021247E7F; Thu, 22 Jun 2006 20:35:31 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 03:35:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [ob] Eliminate another gdb_suppress_entire_file Message-ID: <20060623033531.GJ976@adacore.com> References: <20060622195839.GA20890@nevyn.them.org> <20060623031029.GI976@adacore.com> <20060623032215.GA2754@nevyn.them.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060623032215.GA2754@nevyn.them.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i 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: 2006-06/txt/msg00349.txt.bz2 > > Should we try to remove all the instances of gdb_suppress_entire_file? > > I don't remember if there are some cases where it's legit to use them. > > I'd be in favor. > > It's not a bad idea, really. But the way the GDB testsuite is layed > out, I think it's impractical - and I know that in practice it doesn't > work, because it will always provoke an ERROR: Gdb did not load after > 10 seconds (or something similar to that). Oh ho, I just did a quick grep, and found 352 occurences. That's a lot of work... I wonder if we could do that in a mechanical way. It seems as though replacing this by an error followed by a return would be OK, but not ideal. Hmmm. Perhaps a first step to stop any potential spread would be to rename it deprecated_gdb_suppress_entire_file. -- Joel