From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23469 invoked by alias); 1 Sep 2004 19:30:05 -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 23462 invoked from network); 1 Sep 2004 19:30:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO tisch.mail.mindspring.net) (207.69.200.157) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 1 Sep 2004 19:30:05 -0000 Received: from user-119a90a.biz.mindspring.com ([66.149.36.10] helo=berman.michael-chastain.com) by tisch.mail.mindspring.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 1C2ant-0005Vc-00; Wed, 01 Sep 2004 15:29:57 -0400 Received: from mindspring.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by berman.michael-chastain.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 385FB4B102; Wed, 1 Sep 2004 15:29:56 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2004 19:30:00 -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 Message-ID: <41362333.nail1N211MB10@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> <4135E722.2030401@gnu.org> <41360E6D.5040702@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <41360E6D.5040702@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: 2004-09/txt/msg00021.txt.bz2 Jeff Johnston wrote: > Thanks. Patches committed, including fix to the testcase. Uh, I haven't approved that fix. I wrote: 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. You needed to send a fresh patch to gdb-patches, say how you tested it, and then get it approved. I'm sorry if this wasn't clear from my message. Sometimes I do write too colloquially. This is actually a live issue because the patch you committed has a problem: -"Continuing.*y is 7.*warning: Temporarily disabling unloaded shared library breakpoints.*warning: breakpoint #.*Program exited normally." \ -"continuing to end of program second time" +"Continuing.*y is 7.*warning: Temporarily disabling breakpoints for.*unloadshr.sl.*Program exited normally." \ +"continuing to end of program" Now there are two tests with the identical name "continuing to end of program", which leads to confusion. Can you please: fix that; say which system you tested it on; and submit a patch to gdb-patches? Michael