From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2208 invoked by alias); 18 Apr 2005 21:42:25 -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 2177 invoked from network); 18 Apr 2005 21:42:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail-out4.apple.com) (17.254.13.23) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 18 Apr 2005 21:42:22 -0000 Received: from mailgate1.apple.com (a17-128-100-225.apple.com [17.128.100.225]) by mail-out4.apple.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j3ILgMY0005077 for ; Mon, 18 Apr 2005 14:42:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from relay1.apple.com (relay1.apple.com) by mailgate1.apple.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.3.17) with ESMTP id ; Mon, 18 Apr 2005 14:42:21 -0700 Received: from [17.219.199.230] ([17.219.199.230]) by relay1.apple.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j3ILgHHp023146; Mon, 18 Apr 2005 14:42:18 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <426429B8.50701@apple.com> Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 21:42:00 -0000 From: Stan Shebs User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.7.3) Gecko/20040910 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Michael Snyder CC: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA/RFC] testsuite: gdb_run_cmd tweak References: <42640FA7.9090406@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <42640FA7.9090406@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2005-04/txt/msg00204.txt.bz2 Michael Snyder wrote: > This just adds a regular expression to prevent gdb_run_cmd > from choking on the msg that gdb emits when it detects that > the file has changed and re-reads the symbols. > > I honestly don't remember the circumstances that caused me > to add this -- it's been sitting in my sandbox for a while. > Thought it would be better to offer it up than to throw it > away... Wouldn't a message like this be symptomatic of failure in GDB's executable date detection code, or in the executable production bits? I think we'd only want this suppression if the situation were explicitly known to be unavoidable, like an outside compiler we couldn't control, or a known OS bug, and even then we'd want to conditionalize on config. Stan