Michael Chastain wrote:
> Jeff Johnston <jjohnstn@redhat.com> 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?
>

Oops, my bad.  Sorry about that.

Tested on x86-linux, ia64-linux, x86_64-linux, s390-linux.

Patch attached to fix problem above.

2004-09-01  Jeff Johnston  <jjohnstn@redhat.com>

         * gdb.base/unload.exp: Fix so messages aren't duplicated.


> Michael
>