From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 862 invoked by alias); 9 Feb 2007 20:57:57 -0000 Received: (qmail 853 invoked by uid 22791); 9 Feb 2007 20:57:56 -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, 09 Feb 2007 20:57:52 +0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1HFcoX-0000j8-KL; Fri, 09 Feb 2007 15:57:49 -0500 Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2007 20:57:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Nick Roberts Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: -var-create testsuite updates Message-ID: <20070209205749.GA2730@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Nick Roberts , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20070209162019.GA14230@nevyn.them.org> <17868.56856.625440.923769@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <17868.56856.625440.923769@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> 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: 2007-02/txt/msg00150.txt.bz2 On Sat, Feb 10, 2007 at 09:48:24AM +1300, Nick Roberts wrote: > > I noticed this today, which I should have thought of earlier: > > > > -mi_gdb_test "-var-create func * func" \ > > - "\\^done,name=\"func\",numchild=\"0\",type=\"void \\(\\*\\)\\((void|)\\)\"" \ > > - "create local variable func" > > +mi_create_varobj func func "create local variable func" > > > > The old tests were deliberately checking that the varobj was created with > > the correct type, and the new ones aren't :-( > > (Groan) I picked up the tests which were designed to fail but changed the > others by autopilot. I'll work my way through the changes to work out how many > others we should have kept and submit a new patch. Thanks a lot! I didn't want to actually ask you to do this, since it's a pile of grunt work, but it would certainly be nice to have them back. I only noticed because I had a few patches which changed long to long( int)? to support another compiler, and they no longer applied. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery