From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5029 invoked by alias); 24 Aug 2004 15:51:53 -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 4997 invoked from network); 24 Aug 2004 15:51:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 24 Aug 2004 15:51:50 -0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i7OFpoS0008997 for ; Tue, 24 Aug 2004 11:51:50 -0400 Received: from pobox.toronto.redhat.com (pobox.toronto.redhat.com [172.16.14.4]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i7OFpna06820; Tue, 24 Aug 2004 11:51:49 -0400 Received: from touchme.toronto.redhat.com (IDENT:postfix@touchme.toronto.redhat.com [172.16.14.9]) by pobox.toronto.redhat.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i7OFpfse001379; Tue, 24 Aug 2004 11:51:49 -0400 Received: from redhat.com (toocool.toronto.redhat.com [172.16.14.72]) by touchme.toronto.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E20280001E; Tue, 24 Aug 2004 11:51:41 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <412B640D.4010401@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 15:51:00 -0000 From: Jeff Johnston User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Michael Chastain Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, eliz@gnu.org, drow@false.org Subject: Re: [RFA]: Fix for pending breakpoints in manually loaded/unloaded shlibs 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> <412AA745.nailDJP21A7CE@mindspring.com> In-Reply-To: <412AA745.nailDJP21A7CE@mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2004-08/txt/msg00645.txt.bz2 Michael Chastain wrote: > 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. > The test fails now because gdb is not issuing the message that is currently in the test script. The message in the test script is a new message which does not currently exist and never did in any gdb release. When I get approval to check the gdb code in "and" change the test script, the test will succeed because it will match the actual message checked in. I don't see a version issue of old gdb looked for x and new gdb looks for y. Old gdb will always fail and new gdb will always work. Thus, I was wondering if I still need to have checks for old and new messages in the script. -- Jeff J.