From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8336 invoked by alias); 21 Aug 2012 19:04:59 -0000 Received: (qmail 8327 invoked by uid 22791); 21 Aug 2012 19:04:58 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS 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; Tue, 21 Aug 2012 19:04:42 +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 q7LJ4eh3010311 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 21 Aug 2012 15:04:40 -0400 Received: from host2.jankratochvil.net (ovpn-116-37.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.37]) by int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q7LJ4alZ022806 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 21 Aug 2012 15:04:39 -0400 Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 19:04:00 -0000 From: Jan Kratochvil To: Pedro Alves Cc: Doug Evans , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [patch] gdb.base/valgrind-infcall.exp compat. with Ubuntu 10.04.4 Message-ID: <20120821190428.GA3994@host2.jankratochvil.net> References: <20120807064303.GA4739@host2.jankratochvil.net> <5033D14B.4090801@redhat.com> <20120821182731.GA2980@host2.jankratochvil.net> <5033D64E.1020106@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5033D64E.1020106@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) 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: 2012-08/txt/msg00592.txt.bz2 On Tue, 21 Aug 2012 20:41:18 +0200, Pedro Alves wrote: > On 08/21/2012 07:27 PM, Jan Kratochvil wrote: > > "patchv2" fixes also the case of "The program is not being run". I believe > > the Doug's problem was due to it and not due to the "break" statement. But > > I failed to reproduce the Doug's problem so I left it as is. > > > > The comment just states the bugreport, nothing more. > > Understood. The comment is still there on v2, so the point still stands > though. Unless Doug speaks up with a verification I will just remove the comment. Thanks, Jan