From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 129775 invoked by alias); 5 Sep 2019 12:07:56 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 129767 invoked by uid 89); 5 Sep 2019 12:07:56 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-13.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 spammy= X-HELO: mx1.suse.de Received: from mx2.suse.de (HELO mx1.suse.de) (195.135.220.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Thu, 05 Sep 2019 12:07:55 +0000 Received: from relay2.suse.de (unknown [195.135.220.254]) by mx1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 883D0AEE0; Thu, 5 Sep 2019 12:07:51 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [PATCH][gdb/testsuite] Restore breakpoint command in ui-redirect.exp To: Jan Kratochvil Cc: "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" , Alan Hayward , Andrew Burgess References: <3150ecd9-9221-4360-6a16-563b3c5ef1ab@suse.de> <20190904114855.GA13625@host1.jankratochvil.net> <506eb7aa-4385-e2a2-736f-0c1adb251d61@suse.de> <20190905120300.GA1679@host1.jankratochvil.net> From: Tom de Vries Openpgp: preference=signencrypt Message-ID: <4b937f2c-3db9-d9e5-15d8-34f0b9da8de5@suse.de> Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2019 12:07:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20190905120300.GA1679@host1.jankratochvil.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2019-09/txt/msg00051.txt.bz2 On 05-09-19 14:03, Jan Kratochvil wrote: > On Thu, 05 Sep 2019 09:34:57 +0200, Tom de Vries wrote: >> Attached patch fixes the problem by replacing the initial >> "gdb_breakpoint main" with the runto_main, such that the breakpoint >> command is preserved throughout. > > Yes, the test is now much better than even was the initial one by me. > > >> OK for trunk? > > I cannot approve GDB patches but LGTM. > Thanks. I would at this point commit the patch under the obvious rule, if it didn't introduce a new proc cmp_file_string in lib/gdb.exp. Thanks, - Tom