From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1139 invoked by alias); 1 Aug 2002 22:09:16 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 1128 invoked from network); 1 Aug 2002 22:09:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (216.138.202.10) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 1 Aug 2002 22:09:12 -0000 Received: from ges.redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA8A83C63; Thu, 1 Aug 2002 18:09:12 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3D49B188.1040700@ges.redhat.com> Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2002 15:09:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:1.0.0) Gecko/20020708 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Fernando Nasser Cc: Andrew Cagney , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [rfa/testsuite] One pass/fail per expect list References: <3D0A4801.8030001@cygnus.com> <3D49ACDA.988F972B@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-08/txt/msg00027.txt.bz2 > Andrew Cagney wrote: > >> >> Hello, >> >> The attached tweaks gdb_expect_list{} so that it only prints one pass / >> fail / ... message for the testcase. >> >> What are peoples thoughts on this change and if positive, is the patch ok? >> > > > That is great! I like it. It does not inflate the number of failures > and makes it easier for the error log interpreters and databases as they > won't see repeated tests. > > Thank you! It's in. The number of pass/fails becomes a little bit more stable (and yes the motivation came from trying to compare test results :-). Andrew