From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1825 invoked by alias); 27 Oct 2008 12:52:58 -0000 Received: (qmail 1816 invoked by uid 22791); 27 Oct 2008 12:52:57 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (65.74.133.4) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Mon, 27 Oct 2008 12:52:20 +0000 Received: (qmail 13120 invoked from network); 27 Oct 2008 12:52:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO orlando.local) (pedro@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 27 Oct 2008 12:52:18 -0000 From: Pedro Alves To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFA] Move -nx from GDBFLAGS to INTERNAL_GDBFLAGS in testsuite Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2008 12:52:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.9 Cc: Doug Evans References: <20081021190500.BB7251C7954@localhost> In-Reply-To: <20081021190500.BB7251C7954@localhost> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200810271252.35628.pedro@codesourcery.com> 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: 2008-10/txt/msg00658.txt.bz2 Hi Doug, I like the idea of this patch. I tend to use "set GDBFLAGS foo" in my boardfiles myself. What do others think of it? > +# INTERNAL_GDBFLAGS contains flags that the testsuite requires. > +# ??? Perhaps -nw should go here too. Dunno. Personally, I'd decide/chose one, and remove this comment. If you leave it in, we're doomed to stare and be annoyed by it forever. :-) > +set INTERNAL_GDBFLAGS "-nx" -- Pedro Alves