From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28417 invoked by alias); 27 Mar 2012 18:08:27 -0000 Received: (qmail 28407 invoked by uid 22791); 27 Mar 2012 18:08:26 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.3 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, 27 Mar 2012 18:08:05 +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 q2RI7rjE019984 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 27 Mar 2012 14:07:53 -0400 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 q2RHHAiH017563 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 27 Mar 2012 13:17:12 -0400 Message-ID: <4F71F615.1010306@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2012 18:08:00 -0000 From: Keith Seitz User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:10.0.1) Gecko/20120209 Thunderbird/10.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Joel Brobecker CC: "gdb-patches@sourceware.org ml" Subject: Re: [RFA 1/2] Linespec rewrite (update 2) References: <4F70F8F7.503@redhat.com> <20120327135623.GC2701@adacore.com> <4F71CEF5.8030805@redhat.com> <20120327145425.GD2701@adacore.com> <20120327150528.GE2701@adacore.com> In-Reply-To: <20120327150528.GE2701@adacore.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/msg00916.txt.bz2 On 03/27/2012 08:05 AM, Joel Brobecker wrote: >> I am almost done with the extension of operator_bp.exp; I'll send it >> when I've removed all the typos and thinkos... > > Here it is... As expected, it fails on HEAD, so cannot commit just > yet. But PASSes with your previous iteration of the patch series, > and now fails... If it is failing on the "unimplemented" message, we can certainly whack that from the patch -- it doesn't affect test results at all. In fact, I've pushed this. The decision to issue an unimplemented error should really come from create_linespec_from_sals, since that is the function that actually does the work, and if mi/13139 ever gets implemented, this will affect that as well. I am worried that it appears to give a false positive on your tests with no indication that anything has gone awry. [I worry because I intended to actually implement symbol-relative offsets sometime in the future.] Keith