From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24438 invoked by alias); 22 Oct 2002 15:19:15 -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 24427 invoked from network); 22 Oct 2002 15:19:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO touchme.toronto.redhat.com) (216.138.202.10) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 22 Oct 2002 15:19:13 -0000 Received: from localhost.redhat.com (to-dhcp51.toronto.redhat.com [172.16.14.151]) by touchme.toronto.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB67C800084; Tue, 22 Oct 2002 11:19:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9237C3F02; Tue, 22 Oct 2002 11:19:11 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3DB56C6F.7000108@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 08:19:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:1.0.0) Gecko/20020824 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Elena Zannoni Cc: "J. Johnston" , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Patch for gdb/mi 604 References: <3D9B3D4D.C0B57920@redhat.com> <15796.32490.200752.700605@localhost.redhat.com> <3DB487CB.7F21B13@redhat.com> <15797.24525.445748.958598@localhost.redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-10/txt/msg00398.txt.bz2 > J. Johnston writes: > > Elena Zannoni wrote: > > > > > > J. Johnston writes: > > > > The following patches mi-main.c to turn on the console output prefix prior > > > > to outputting the gdb startup messages. The code checks for mi level > > > > and defers to old behavior for mi1. > > > > > > > > Ok to commit? > > > > > > > > > > Wouldn't this affect the testsuite as well? > > > Or is this behavior not tested? > > > > > > Elena > > > > > > > It does not affect the testsuite. The testsuite startup code looks for > > the gdb prompt or some form of error indication, but does not specifically > > look at the start-up message. > > > > Hmm, I wonder whether now it should. Since we are expecting a specific > behavior it might as well be tested. Thoughts? It _needs_ to be tested - if it isn't tested it doesn't work :-) Andrew