From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15786 invoked by alias); 28 Mar 2012 04:52:28 -0000 Received: (qmail 15778 invoked by uid 22791); 28 Mar 2012 04:52:27 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 04:52:15 +0000 Received: from int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.24]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q2S4qEcM007100 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 00:52:14 -0400 Received: from mesquite.lan (ovpn-113-58.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.113.58]) by int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q2S4qELF007874 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 00:52:14 -0400 Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2012 04:52:00 -0000 From: Kevin Buettner To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [SH] gdb.arch/gdb1291.exp, gdb.arch/gdb1431.exp Message-ID: <20120327215213.232d5857@mesquite.lan> In-Reply-To: <87fwcze2w7.fsf@schwinge.name> References: <87fwcze2w7.fsf@schwinge.name> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: 2012-03/txt/msg00934.txt.bz2 On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 16:46:32 +0100 Thomas Schwinge wrote: > Exactly the same for gdb.arch/gdb1431.exp: their source files > (gdb.arch/gdb1291.s, gdb.arch/gdb1431.s) are identical, and I first > propose to get rid of one of them: > > gdb/testsuite/ > > * gdb.arch/gdb1431.s: Remove file. > * gdb.arch/gdb1431.exp (srcfile): Refer to gdb1291.s. I don't know enough about the tests in question to say whether this is a good approach or not. Is there a chance that someone will want to tweak the code for one of the test cases without also having to tweak the other? Kevin