From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10122 invoked by alias); 14 Jul 2007 01:09:47 -0000 Received: (qmail 10110 invoked by uid 22791); 14 Jul 2007 01:09:47 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from NaN.false.org (HELO nan.false.org) (208.75.86.248) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Sat, 14 Jul 2007 01:09:45 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9ABF598299; Sat, 14 Jul 2007 01:09:44 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0519898296; Sat, 14 Jul 2007 01:09:43 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1I9W8i-0005dX-To; Fri, 13 Jul 2007 21:09:40 -0400 Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2007 01:09:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFC] Add call to gdb_exit prior to gdb_start in gdb.cp/ref-params.exp Message-ID: <20070714010940.GB21402@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <20070713165341.17505f34@ironwood.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070713165341.17505f34@ironwood.lan> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.15 (2007-04-09) 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: 2007-07/txt/msg00207.txt.bz2 Message-ID: <20070714010900.CiRR-93H-_JkSqHnoOKKYJvkR3dXXBMXpIn5w2cB4LQ@z> On Fri, Jul 13, 2007 at 04:53:41PM -0700, Kevin Buettner wrote: > I've been testing a mep-elf toolchain using the SID simulator. I found > it necessary to add the call to gdb_exit as indicated in the patch below. > Without this patch, I get 3 passes and 16 unresolved testcases. With the > patch, I see 14 passes (and no failures or unresolved testcases). > > I took a look at invcations of gdb_start in other tests and found > that it is customary to invoke gdb_exit prior to gdb_start. (It is > not _always_ done, but nearly so.) Thus it seems to me that the > missing call to gdb_exit in ref-params.exp is merely an oversight. > > Comments? Hmm, my runs of ref-params.exp don't show GDB being restarted. I think it's just reusing the same GDB. Still, your patch looks right. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery