From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8916 invoked by alias); 24 Aug 2004 02:26:16 -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 8896 invoked from network); 24 Aug 2004 02:26:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO smtp6.mindspring.com) (207.69.200.110) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 24 Aug 2004 02:26:14 -0000 Received: from user-119a90a.biz.mindspring.com ([66.149.36.10] helo=berman.michael-chastain.com) by smtp6.mindspring.com with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 1BzR0Z-0001sl-00; Mon, 23 Aug 2004 22:25:59 -0400 Received: from mindspring.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by berman.michael-chastain.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 099A94B102; Mon, 23 Aug 2004 22:26:14 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 02:26:00 -0000 From: Michael Chastain To: jjohnstn@redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA]: Fix for pending breakpoints in manually loaded/unloaded shlibs Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, eliz@gnu.org, drow@false.org Message-ID: <412AA745.nailDJP21A7CE@mindspring.com> References: <41191D71.60204@redhat.com> <20040811171203.GA4152@nevyn.them.org> <411A7D97.50104@redhat.com> <20040818135621.GA26257@nevyn.them.org> <4123AC6E.8000300@redhat.com> <20040818193952.GA27639@nevyn.them.org> <4123B62C.6060703@redhat.com> <412A62A6.3010806@redhat.com> <412A6B08.nailD8G118X9H@mindspring.com> <412A713C.1020004@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <412A713C.1020004@redhat.com> User-Agent: nail 10.8 6/28/04 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2004-08/txt/msg00636.txt.bz2 Jeff Johnston wrote: > The test should behave the same because the gdb code that generates > the message it is checking hasn't been committed yet. On retrospect, > perhaps I should not have committed the testcase in with this > particular check in place (the test itself is a valid one regardless). > There has been some questions regarding whether I should be using an > observer or not. Knowing that, do I still need to do the following or > can I check the change I attached in once I get final approval on the > code and most importantly, the message to be issued? I don't quite follow you, but if you are asking: can you check in a change to the test script before you check in a change to gdb: in general, you can do that. If the test script accepts both old+new messages, and the new message is not wildly more complex than the old message, then testing with the old message alone is good enough for getting the test script approved. Just pop out the new patch and say how / what system you tested on. If that's not what you mean, I'm confused.