From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1239 invoked by alias); 7 Mar 2012 20:48:56 -0000 Received: (qmail 1229 invoked by uid 22791); 7 Mar 2012 20:48:55 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_PASS,TW_GJ,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; Wed, 07 Mar 2012 20:48:41 +0000 Received: from int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q27KmbNg013036 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 7 Mar 2012 15:48:38 -0500 Received: from valrhona.uglyboxes.com (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q27KmY9W023334 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 7 Mar 2012 15:48:36 -0500 Message-ID: <4F57C9A2.7050809@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2012 20:48:00 -0000 From: Keith Seitz User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:9.0) Gecko/20111222 Thunderbird/9.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Pedro Alves CC: "Maciej W. Rozycki" , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] remote: Fix a crash on longjmp breakpoint removal References: <4F57C92F.7010501@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <4F57C92F.7010501@redhat.com> 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: 2012-03/txt/msg00249.txt.bz2 On 03/07/2012 12:46 PM, Pedro Alves wrote: > py-finish-breakpoint.exp was failing against gdbserver without the fix. > I don't mind adding a new test. Keith's was using gdb_expect, which we > very much like to avoid. Can it be made to use gdb_test or > gdb_test_multiple? I should think so. The test is pretty simple. I just keep forgetting about gdb_test_multiple! Keith