From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13268 invoked by alias); 5 Jan 2007 15:10:07 -0000 Received: (qmail 13258 invoked by uid 22791); 5 Jan 2007 15:10:06 -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, 05 Jan 2007 15:09:58 +0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1H2qhe-0006kP-QX; Fri, 05 Jan 2007 10:09:54 -0500 Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2007 15:10:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Vladimir Prus Cc: Nick Roberts , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: MI: Another -var-update bug? [PATCH] Message-ID: <20070105150954.GE24554@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Vladimir Prus , Nick Roberts , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <17790.36044.454650.114329@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> <17821.38113.889832.231159@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> <200701051210.09186.ghost@cs.msu.su> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200701051210.09186.ghost@cs.msu.su> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2007-01/txt/msg00193.txt.bz2 On Fri, Jan 05, 2007 at 12:10:09PM +0300, Vladimir Prus wrote: > On Friday 05 January 2007 02:59, Nick Roberts wrote: > > > This patch introduces this for me: > > > > > > FAIL: gdb.mi/mi-var-cp.exp: update RX (3) > > > > > > Do you get this failure to? If yes, can you please fix it? > > > If no, let me know and I'll investigate. > > > > I don't get this failure. > > I suppose you've got some different version of gcc. I'll take a look. I don't see the failure either. > > Yes, it looks like the call to select_frame is not needed when the variable is > > out of scope. > > Good. Do we have a rule in place that small fixes to one's most recent commit that > seem obvious to you can be just committed? If yes, can you change this? We don't have such a rule - but this would be an obvious change anyway, in my opinion. > > Daniel also suggested removing the call to reinit_frame_cache. > > I think that would be great as a separate patch. Yes, I've been meaning to do it. Wasn't it part of a patch of mine you reposted recently? -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery