From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3297 invoked by alias); 23 Jun 2006 12:34:00 -0000 Received: (qmail 3289 invoked by uid 22791); 23 Jun 2006 12:33:59 -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; Fri, 23 Jun 2006 12:33:57 +0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.54) id 1FtkrD-0004On-CZ for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Fri, 23 Jun 2006 08:33:55 -0400 Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 12:34:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [ob] Eliminate another gdb_suppress_entire_file Message-ID: <20060623123354.GA16879@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20060622195839.GA20890@nevyn.them.org> <20060623031029.GI976@adacore.com> <20060623032215.GA2754@nevyn.them.org> <20060623033531.GJ976@adacore.com> <20060623033948.GA3253@nevyn.them.org> <20060623040352.GK976@adacore.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060623040352.GK976@adacore.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11+cvs20060403 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: 2006-06/txt/msg00355.txt.bz2 On Thu, Jun 22, 2006 at 09:03:52PM -0700, Joel Brobecker wrote: > > I've been using untested followed by return. Why wouldn't that be > > ideal? > > It's actually pretty good. I think in some cases unsupported might > be a better choice, but I like untested too, because it's always > going to be true... > > I see in your patch that you used the name of the .exp file as > the argument of untested. Should we do that, or should we try > to preserve the string we previously used with gdb_suppress_entire_file? Really, I don't think it matters :-) -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery