From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22226 invoked by alias); 4 Feb 2010 18:16:31 -0000 Received: (qmail 22216 invoked by uid 22791); 4 Feb 2010 18:16:31 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (38.113.113.100) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 04 Feb 2010 18:16:25 +0000 Received: (qmail 18612 invoked from network); 4 Feb 2010 18:16:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO caradoc.them.org) (dan@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 4 Feb 2010 18:16:24 -0000 Date: Thu, 04 Feb 2010 18:16:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Joel Brobecker Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFA/testsuite] Reset the timeout duration at the start of each testcase. Message-ID: <20100204181621.GB27544@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Joel Brobecker , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20100129153726.GC30542@caradoc.them.org> <1265263706-22569-1-git-send-email-brobecker@adacore.com> <20100204155956.GA14962@caradoc.them.org> <20100204174254.GC2715@adacore.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100204174254.GC2715@adacore.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) 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: 2010-02/txt/msg00128.txt.bz2 On Thu, Feb 04, 2010 at 09:42:54PM +0400, Joel Brobecker wrote: > Just something that occured to me: What if I changed the implementation > to just store $timeout at the time gdb.exp is evaluated. From the user's > perspective, the difference is that he would need to override the value > of $timeout, which is an already-known variable, instead of setting the > value of the new default_test_timeout variable. Would that be ugly? > > This isn't tested (it's getting late here), but this is what I have > in mind: Right, I think this would work fine and I like it. Here's another trick that will make it less confusing about initialization order. How about we info exists to set default_test_timeout from gdb_init, if we haven't yet? I know I've worked with board files that loaded gdb.exp themselves. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery