Re: [PATCH] remote: Fix a crash on longjmp breakpoint removal

[Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com>]

On 03/10/2012 05:11 AM, Keith Seitz wrote:

> On 03/09/2012 08:48 PM, Keith Seitz wrote:
>> On 03/09/2012 06:55 PM, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
>>> Keith, would you care updating your test case then? I'm going to be away
>>> for two weeks and won't be able to look into it any sooner.
>>
>> Sure thing.
> 
> I've changed the test a little bit to safeguard against looping forever. Pedro, does this look acceptable?
> 


I was going to say there's really nothing target specific in the test, and
that thus it's best to put it under gdb.base/ (well I just did :-) ), but then I
remembered Tom's quite new gdb.base/nextoverexit.exp test that tests the exact
same (albeit in an even simpler form).  I've checked out a tree from just before
my fix, and run it against nextoverexit.exp w/ gdbserver (didn't exist at the
time, so I copied it over), and indeed GDB crashes.

So we don't really need this new test; it's redundant.  Sorry for not realizing
this before you went for the trouble of updating the test...  :-/

-- 
Pedro Alves