From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8780 invoked by alias); 1 Dec 2009 21:14:06 -0000 Received: (qmail 8770 invoked by uid 22791); 1 Dec 2009 21:14:05 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 01 Dec 2009 21:13:57 +0000 Received: from int-mx04.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx04.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.17]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id nB1LDtmr011785 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Tue, 1 Dec 2009 16:13:55 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx04.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id nB1LDsLd005881; Tue, 1 Dec 2009 16:13:54 -0500 Message-ID: <4B158711.1060505@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2009 21:14:00 -0000 From: Phil Muldoon User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.4pre) Gecko/20090922 Fedora/3.0-3.9.b4.fc12 Lightning/1.0pre Thunderbird/3.0b4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tromey@redhat.com CC: gdb-patches ml Subject: Re: [python][patch] Add is_base_class attribute to fields. References: <4B13A147.2040208@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: 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-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2009-12/txt/msg00006.txt.bz2 On 12/01/2009 08:51 PM, Tom Tromey wrote: >>>>>> "Phil" == Phil Muldoon writes: > > Phil> Later I fixed a bug/added tests to capture a regression this > Phil> functionality caused. > Phil> http://sourceware.org/ml/archer/2009-q4/msg00016.html? > > The tests are nice but they don't actually check the is_base_class field. > Could you add a test to do that? Sure, I'll add a test. The tests I added were testing a regression (#10805) for non C++ inferiors accessing fields, but were seg-fault'ing on the C++ specific parts of is_base_class (That was my contribution). But I take your point. The added tests should be pretty simple! > > Other than that I think the code bits are ok. It needs a doc review. > > Phil> +# Run a command in GDB, and report a failure if a Python exception is > Phil> thrown. > > Your mailer seems to have wrapped the patch. Apologies. I just upgraded from F11 -> F12, and this is an in-line patch, something I don't normally do. I'll fix the relevant regressive Thunderbird bits for next time. Cheers, Phil