From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28900 invoked by alias); 12 Mar 2007 23:05:21 -0000 Received: (qmail 28886 invoked by uid 22791); 12 Mar 2007 23:05:19 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from sibelius.xs4all.nl (HELO brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl) (82.92.89.47) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Mon, 12 Mar 2007 23:05:15 +0000 Received: from brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl (kettenis@localhost.sibelius.xs4all.nl [127.0.0.1]) by brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id l2CN5AN9004098; Tue, 13 Mar 2007 00:05:10 +0100 (CET) Received: (from kettenis@localhost) by brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.14.0/8.14.0/Submit) id l2CN5AWw022470; Tue, 13 Mar 2007 00:05:10 +0100 (CET) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 23:05:00 -0000 Message-Id: <200703122305.l2CN5AWw022470@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> From: Mark Kettenis To: drow@false.org CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-reply-to: <20070312210856.GA21953@caradoc.them.org> (message from Daniel Jacobowitz on Mon, 12 Mar 2007 17:08:56 -0400) Subject: Re: Improve end check on rs6000 prologue analyzer References: <20060929213726.GA1770@nevyn.them.org> <200609301932.k8UJW0kw030997@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <20061017212114.GC12643@nevyn.them.org> <200610181958.k9IJw88G009044@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <20070309150504.GA5166@caradoc.them.org> <200703111913.l2BJDEhC006601@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <20070312121843.GA24487@caradoc.them.org> <200703122102.l2CL284g022996@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <20070312210856.GA21953@caradoc.them.org> 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: 2007-03/txt/msg00130.txt.bz2 > Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 17:08:56 -0400 > From: Daniel Jacobowitz > > On Mon, Mar 12, 2007 at 10:02:08PM +0100, Mark Kettenis wrote: > > Ah, I think I've seen this before. On OpenBSD the tty subsystem does > > tab expansion, wheras on Linux this doesn't happen by default. So we > > must match spaces as well as tabs here. I think that means the second > > pattern is really redundant. How about the attached patch? > > Yeesh! I didn't know that. Is there somewhere we could write it down > for test writers who make this same mistake, maybe? I would have > merrily written tests that expected the tab :-( Hmm, I'm not sure we have any documentation on this. Eli, do you know a good location to put this info. > > Your patch looks right to me. I know that I hit the "step over > initial brace" on all platforms on a regular basis - it's not like > this is a new problem. But letting it pass is probably relatively > newer than the IRIX-specific xfail. Comitted. Daniel, this means that as far as I am concerned this patch can go in. Mark