From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca by simark.ca with LMTP id OILqD0HJYWH4RQAAWB0awg (envelope-from ) for ; Sat, 09 Oct 2021 12:54:25 -0400 Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id 3F32A1EE20; Sat, 9 Oct 2021 12:54:25 -0400 (EDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on simark.ca X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.7 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A,RDNS_DYNAMIC, URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from sourceware.org (ip-8-43-85-97.sourceware.org [8.43.85.97]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E98401E79C for ; Sat, 9 Oct 2021 12:54:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39DE43857C73 for ; Sat, 9 Oct 2021 16:54:24 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 39DE43857C73 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org; s=default; t=1633798464; bh=1FxmWDyKYe4VBfg09clIbdBbVeBZ8S9dgS0qU3r5Dw4=; h=Subject:To:References:Date:In-Reply-To:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe:From:Reply-To: From; b=LbLOMBbY6VYX+2zdoRHXu3F2fNxvdXeSj7fUuX+VUMABzHADw/ey4AnVn0tQyq1v0 FudTBO8KYXrBfivQV2FjNqBf87TRzg5UfTjITown7vQx9P6POzdtrycSuqy2DQJQus S7EbMm6hbk1S21zszVs9O3l5Od1h/OiA7YhwCj/Y= Received: from smtp-out1.suse.de (smtp-out1.suse.de [195.135.220.28]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0A38C3858404 for ; Sat, 9 Oct 2021 16:54:05 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 0A38C3858404 Received: from imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de [192.168.254.74]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-521) server-digest SHA512) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-out1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0063821FAC; Sat, 9 Oct 2021 16:54:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de [192.168.254.74]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-521) server-digest SHA512) (No client certificate requested) by imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D861513517; Sat, 9 Oct 2021 16:54:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dovecot-director2.suse.de ([192.168.254.65]) by imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de with ESMTPSA id 1PrlMivJYWGvaQAAMHmgww (envelope-from ); Sat, 09 Oct 2021 16:54:03 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH][gdb/testsuite] Add check-readmore To: Simon Marchi , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20210608072444.GA3547@delia> <5abb7e45-c1e1-b8f9-125c-334353a5396b@polymtl.ca> <2054837a-eb79-9729-4679-22365f082a62@suse.de> <66c15d74-375d-6643-e692-3d636a7c7673@suse.de> Message-ID: <3fbef6f9-226d-76e0-9057-c7256023beb2@suse.de> Date: Sat, 9 Oct 2021 18:54:03 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.12.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <66c15d74-375d-6643-e692-3d636a7c7673@suse.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: gdb-patches@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , From: Tom de Vries via Gdb-patches Reply-To: Tom de Vries Errors-To: gdb-patches-bounces+public-inbox=simark.ca@sourceware.org Sender: "Gdb-patches" On 8/31/21 3:45 PM, Tom de Vries via Gdb-patches wrote: > [ was: Re: [RFC][gdb/testsuite] Add check-readmore ] > > On 8/30/21 5:30 PM, Tom de Vries wrote: > >>> If not, I'd just go >>> with the simplest. I could imagine a modified method 2 version where we >>> read in a loop though, until we reached "count" bytes or the file >>> descriptor has no more data to offer (still with a 10ms wait between >>> each read, to give the writer time to produce more data). >> >> Agreed, there could be some benefit in doing this in a loop. It would >> add a benefit similar to increasing the timeout, without the drawback of >> waiting unnecessary while the buffer is already full. > > Implemented the loop approach. > I've committed this now. Thanks, - Tom