From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca by simark.ca with LMTP id OM0JC59HVGJVMQAAWB0awg (envelope-from ) for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2022 11:22:07 -0400 Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id 1804A1F202; Mon, 11 Apr 2022 11:22:07 -0400 (EDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on simark.ca X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from sourceware.org (server2.sourceware.org [8.43.85.97]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 873C31ED17 for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2022 11:22:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E527C3835722 for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2022 15:22:05 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org E527C3835722 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org; s=default; t=1649690525; bh=PnWO0JWTGunJshegTGcXyzpHzxIXLvniN1oFmHqoD9k=; h=Date:Subject:To:References:In-Reply-To:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe:From:Reply-To: From; b=WwOzZFKJSPaLD7379J+xfoRpNLuKczEnzgrCAUEeEol5vf1FY2xXUYh183o5bdUyY coBr08OcAW73FcCqeX1y3I5lOAgz41idA3O79/cUgAMF2te7u7QbKDG4vlR3SlblIU VXGxi52FkXrlKjyP89DzsvWBi+kCZ7xcYZfOiW3A= Received: from smtp.polymtl.ca (smtp.polymtl.ca [132.207.4.11]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 26DE73841924 for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2022 15:21:29 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 26DE73841924 Received: from simark.ca (simark.ca [158.69.221.121]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp.polymtl.ca (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id 23BFLNNT023552 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 11 Apr 2022 11:21:28 -0400 DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp.polymtl.ca 23BFLNNT023552 Received: from [172.16.0.95] (192-222-180-24.qc.cable.ebox.net [192.222.180.24]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 49ACB1ED17; Mon, 11 Apr 2022 11:21:23 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <50541dee-428e-86b2-0a07-b0873adb6613@polymtl.ca> Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2022 11:21:22 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.7.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH][gdb/testsuite] Make gdb.base/annota1.exp more robust Content-Language: tl To: Tom de Vries , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20220405134732.GA32701@delia> <4a85ab96-c18f-9409-0b8b-68caca2e3e74@suse.de> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Poly-FromMTA: (simark.ca [158.69.221.121]) at Mon, 11 Apr 2022 15:21:23 +0000 X-BeenThere: gdb-patches@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , From: Simon Marchi via Gdb-patches Reply-To: Simon Marchi Errors-To: gdb-patches-bounces+public-inbox=simark.ca@sourceware.org Sender: "Gdb-patches" > Pushed, but now that I reply here I see I didn't fully read the rationale for the patch you posted, and didn't follow up on that, apologies for that. > > So, perhaps you're right, perhaps we don't care about the order (though it would be nice for me to understand why we don't care). > > I understood the matching in the test-case to be very loose due to having to juggle mostly the variance in non-annotation output. So I decided to "fix" this by being as strict as possible in matching annotations, and as simple as possible in matching non-annotations. > > I hope the committed patch will be sufficient though. > > I you think there's still an issue, then I can revert and apply your patch. I'm happy with your explanation and your patch. It seems to fix the issue I observed, it's possible that I did not analyze the problem correctly. Thanks! Simon