From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2173 invoked by alias); 19 Apr 2011 19:11:50 -0000 Received: (qmail 2165 invoked by uid 22791); 19 Apr 2011 19:11:49 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD 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, 19 Apr 2011 19:11:32 +0000 Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p3JJBVvT005551 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Tue, 19 Apr 2011 15:11:32 -0400 Received: from dhcp-25-89.brq.redhat.com (pdp-11.brq.redhat.com [10.34.24.63]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p3JJBU8j013328; Tue, 19 Apr 2011 15:11:31 -0400 Message-ID: <4DADDE62.5070400@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 19:11:00 -0000 From: Marek Polacek User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.9) Gecko/20100827 Red Hat Thunderbird/3.1.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tom Tromey CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] gdb.base/setshow.exp: fix racy tests (PR testsuite/12649) References: <4DAC6924.2000100@redhat.com> <4DAD333D.6010103@redhat.com> <4DAD8C40.30703@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 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: 2011-04/txt/msg00338.txt.bz2 On 04/19/2011 08:46 PM, Tom Tromey wrote: > If I revert that hunk, it still works for me. > So, something else must be going on. Yes, but try running it without those "\\"s and _with_ read1() from: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12649 I bet you will see those FAILs afterwards. Do we really have to avoid those backslashes? Couldn't they just stay? Thanks, Marek