From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2606 invoked by alias); 28 Jul 2006 02:37:05 -0000 Received: (qmail 2597 invoked by uid 22791); 28 Jul 2006 02:37:04 -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, 28 Jul 2006 02:37:02 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-nile.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BE5648CED2 for ; Thu, 27 Jul 2006 22:37:00 -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 07105-01-3 for ; Thu, 27 Jul 2006 22:37:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from takamaka.act-europe.fr (unknown [70.71.0.212]) by nile.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 162EC48CECE for ; Thu, 27 Jul 2006 22:37:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: by takamaka.act-europe.fr (Postfix, from userid 507) id 59B4947EFA; Thu, 27 Jul 2006 19:36:59 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 02:37:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA/testsuite] check bt problem after 2 steps is gone Message-ID: <20060728023659.GF12362@adacore.com> References: <20060428174035.GF930@adacore.com> <20060727134139.GB15735@nevyn.them.org> <20060728011114.GE12362@adacore.com> <20060728015056.GA1754@nevyn.them.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060728015056.GA1754@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: 2006-07/txt/msg00410.txt.bz2 > > My guess is that we should be able to add an extra "stepi 2; bt" > > and that should work for all other architectures. > > Let's be conservative; how about stepi; bt; stepi; bt? Doh! Rereading more carefully what you wrote, I think I misinterpreted it. Yes, of course, adding the extra bt between the two stepi's would work (that is: we would still have the same problem if we don't apply the patch). Will modify the testcase to that effect. -- Joel