From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17661 invoked by alias); 23 May 2012 18:21:54 -0000 Received: (qmail 17647 invoked by uid 22791); 23 May 2012 18:21:53 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,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; Wed, 23 May 2012 18:21:36 +0000 Received: from int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.24]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q4NILavq026019 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Wed, 23 May 2012 14:21:36 -0400 Received: from valrhona.uglyboxes.com (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q4NILXCN013228 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 23 May 2012 14:21:35 -0400 Message-ID: <4FBD2AAD.9020509@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 18:21:00 -0000 From: Keith Seitz User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120329 Thunderbird/11.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Pedro Alves CC: "gdb-patches@sourceware.org ml" Subject: Re: [RFA] Suppress stap-trace.exp when compilation fails References: <4FBD1B16.7080606@redhat.com> <4FBD203E.1010004@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <4FBD203E.1010004@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: 2012-05/txt/msg00912.txt.bz2 On 05/23/2012 10:37 AM, Pedro Alves wrote: > Sure, thanks. There's a second compilation further below, but I'll assume that if > the first succeeds, the second should also. I thought the same thing, too, but perhaps there is no reason /not/ to protect that, too. I've committed the patch with that safeguard added. [I'm not reposting that, since it is trivial.] Thank you for taking a look. Keith