From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7566 invoked by alias); 13 Feb 2003 17:27:28 -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 7559 invoked from network); 13 Feb 2003 17:27:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (193.41.215.82) by 172.16.49.205 with SMTP; 13 Feb 2003 17:27:28 -0000 Received: from redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8EB373CE5; Thu, 13 Feb 2003 18:27:30 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3E4BD582.3080700@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 17:27:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20021211 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Carlton Cc: Daniel Jacobowitz , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [commit/obish] Fix cntrl-z References: <3E4A69FC.8070605@redhat.com> <20030212184232.GA30842@nevyn.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2003-02/txt/msg00307.txt.bz2 > On Wed, 12 Feb 2003 13:42:32 -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz said: > > >> Woah! Deterministic behavior on the annotate-quit test? > > > Yeah. It had actually always been deterministic for me: I never saw > it pass. Then it started always passing after the interpreter merge. > But when I saw the aforementioned patch go by, I thought that might > undo the good work, and sure enough, it did. Michael Chastain has > also made similar observations (though he hasn't yet had time to > verify my observation from today). So: Given the interps change wasn't ment to affect that annotate test, I don't think that it suddenly working can really be thought of as `good work'. It just happens to make it work, probably because something is/isn't being flushed now. >> It's probably something in the CLI command loop then... > > > We do seem to have enough data to make this sound plausible. Though > I'm not familiar enough with the code in question to say anything > more. Andrew