From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 100686 invoked by alias); 11 Sep 2016 21:15:36 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 100665 invoked by uid 89); 11 Sep 2016 21:15:36 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-3.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy= X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Sun, 11 Sep 2016 21:15:35 +0000 Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3D778C057FA7 for ; Sun, 11 Sep 2016 21:15:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from host1.jankratochvil.net (ovpn-116-46.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.46]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id u8BLFVDJ006222 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Sun, 11 Sep 2016 17:15:33 -0400 Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2016 21:15:00 -0000 From: Jan Kratochvil To: Sergio Durigan Junior Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [testsuite patch] Fix false FAIL in stap-probe.exp Message-ID: <20160911211530.GA23345@host1.jankratochvil.net> References: <20160911140413.GA557@host1.jankratochvil.net> <87inu2miwi.fsf@redhat.com> <20160911175615.GA3517@host1.jankratochvil.net> <87a8fem9x4.fsf@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87a8fem9x4.fsf@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.7.0 (2016-08-17) X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2016-09/txt/msg00087.txt.bz2 On Sun, 11 Sep 2016 22:57:43 +0200, Sergio Durigan Junior wrote: > No if we mark it as volatile and use it as the argument for one of the > probes. I did not realize the two probe instances can have different parameters and they still will become a multi-location probe. > What do you think of the patch below? I find it fine/better than the patch of mine. I do not see relevance of my name on your patch but I do not mind either way. Thanks, Jan