From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11415 invoked by alias); 20 May 2010 17:09:45 -0000 Received: (qmail 11405 invoked by uid 22791); 20 May 2010 17:09:44 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD 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, 20 May 2010 17:09:40 +0000 Received: (qmail 15199 invoked from network); 20 May 2010 17:09:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO orlando.localnet) (pedro@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 20 May 2010 17:09:39 -0000 From: Pedro Alves To: Joel Brobecker Subject: Re: [rfa] gdb.base/volatile.exp / varargs.exp: replace send_gdb with gdb_test Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 17:57:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.12.2 (Linux/2.6.31-21-generic; KDE/4.3.2; x86_64; ; ) Cc: msnyder@vmware.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <4BF4497E.9040209@vmware.com> <201005201746.48113.pedro@codesourcery.com> <20100520170639.GC3019@adacore.com> In-Reply-To: <20100520170639.GC3019@adacore.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201005201809.36642.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: 2010-05/txt/msg00427.txt.bz2 On Thursday 20 May 2010 18:06:39, Joel Brobecker wrote: > > Yeah, I pointed this out before in that context, and also pointed > > out in that context that for "set foo", we could try "show foo", and > > confirm that what we tried to set actually was set. Similarly > > for any test that should produce no output and that has a > > corresponding "state getter". > > Makes total sense to me. It might be unfair to put that on Michael's > shoulders for that patch, but if he's up for it, maybe as a followup > patch... To be clear, I wasn't suggesting that Michael implemented it for this patch, or even that Michael himself did it. I even think that patches that replace send_gdb with gdb_test should avoid doing more than just that. -- Pedro Alves