From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26478 invoked by alias); 9 Nov 2009 20:33:59 -0000 Received: (qmail 26469 invoked by uid 22791); 9 Nov 2009 20:33:59 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from NaN.false.org (HELO nan.false.org) (208.75.86.248) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 09 Nov 2009 20:33:54 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E87E10D74; Mon, 9 Nov 2009 20:33:53 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (209.195.188.212.nauticom.net [209.195.188.212]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E92F10D6B; Mon, 9 Nov 2009 20:33:53 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1N7avw-000365-Et; Mon, 09 Nov 2009 15:33:52 -0500 Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2009 20:33:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Daniel Gutson Cc: Michael Snyder , "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH] gcore registers storing fix Message-ID: <20091109203352.GA11579@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Daniel Gutson , Michael Snyder , "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" References: <4AF4A505.4010600@codesourcery.com> <4AF72404.1070808@vmware.com> <4AF82E4E.8000500@codesourcery.com> <20091109153110.GA12924@caradoc.them.org> <4AF85CC0.2030002@codesourcery.com> <20091109182550.GA30593@caradoc.them.org> <4AF86112.2040304@codesourcery.com> <20091109201028.GA8855@caradoc.them.org> <4AF87C4C.8010504@codesourcery.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4AF87C4C.8010504@codesourcery.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) 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: 2009-11/txt/msg00165.txt.bz2 On Mon, Nov 09, 2009 at 05:32:12PM -0300, Daniel Gutson wrote: > > > Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > >On Mon, Nov 09, 2009 at 03:36:02PM -0300, Daniel Gutson wrote: > >>Because none of them checks that the text "in ??" does *not* show up > > > >Michael has pointed out that this text can legitimately appear. > >If there is a function in the system libraries without debug > >information, we may be there. For instance, inside the implementation > >of printf. > > OK, should I just remove the test case then? That, or only check that > the ?? is not in the current thread. Let's drop the new test. The code part of your patch is OK to commit. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery