From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29855 invoked by alias); 26 Nov 2005 04:01:37 -0000 Received: (qmail 29846 invoked by uid 22791); 26 Nov 2005 04:01:36 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Sat, 26 Nov 2005 04:01:35 +0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id jAQ41YZd013299 for ; Fri, 25 Nov 2005 23:01:34 -0500 Received: from potter.sfbay.redhat.com (potter.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.27.15]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id jAQ41XV16841; Fri, 25 Nov 2005 23:01:33 -0500 Received: from [172.16.24.50] (bluegiant.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.24.50]) by potter.sfbay.redhat.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id jAQ41VSY027725; Fri, 25 Nov 2005 23:01:32 -0500 Message-ID: <4387DE18.6090800@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 13:01:00 -0000 From: Michael Snyder User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird (X11/20050322) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mark Kettenis CC: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, drow@false.org Subject: Re: [RFA] Run follow-fork tests on Linux References: <4387914C.1000404@redhat.com> <200511252320.jAPNKfkv010544@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> In-Reply-To: <200511252320.jAPNKfkv010544@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2005-11/txt/msg00482.txt.bz2 Mark Kettenis wrote: >>Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 14:33:48 -0800 >>From: Michael Snyder >> >>This allows the tests "foll-fork" and "foll-vfork" to run on Linux, >>where they mostly pass. A little more verbose output from linux-nat.c >>will fix the remaining failures. > > > I think Dan J. and I basically agreed that actually the verbose output > seen on HP-UX is undesirable. So we should probably fix the testsuite > instead. I'm happy to go along with that. > I think that makes the second chunck of the patch > unecessary. Oh well, it's harmless, and it makes the test strings consistant. If that doesn't convince you, it can go. > Oh, and I really think you should check for *-*-linux* > instead of *-pc-linux*. Roger. Habit, that's what I meant. > That said I'd like to see these tests enabled on *-*-openbsd3.9 and up > too. Feel free to add those. If you don't I'll consider it to be an > obvious patch once you've committed the Linux stuff. I'd rather let you, since I can't easily test it. Michael