From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3491 invoked by alias); 1 Mar 2013 09:15:18 -0000 Received: (qmail 3423 invoked by uid 22791); 1 Mar 2013 09:15:17 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-8.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,KHOP_SPAMHAUS_DROP,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS 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; Fri, 01 Mar 2013 09:15:09 +0000 Received: from int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r219F6o4014234 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 1 Mar 2013 04:15:06 -0500 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.11]) by int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r219F4Pr013296; Fri, 1 Mar 2013 04:15:05 -0500 Message-ID: <51307198.6090404@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2013 09:15:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130110 Thunderbird/17.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Yao Qi CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] Read CTF by the ctf target References: <1361931459-3953-1-git-send-email-yao@codesourcery.com> <1361931459-3953-4-git-send-email-yao@codesourcery.com> <512F9182.3080104@redhat.com> <51305ED5.7000706@codesourcery.com> In-Reply-To: <51305ED5.7000706@codesourcery.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: 2013-03/txt/msg00004.txt.bz2 On 03/01/2013 07:55 AM, Yao Qi wrote: > On 03/01/2013 01:18 AM, Pedro Alves wrote: >> We know from previous patches that the latest released >> babeltrace breaks gdb, due to the lookup_enum function. Does >> this catch that? I see namespacing fixes going into >> babeltrace as recently as last 15th. Do we know if > > We are using babeltrace trunk now, sure > so the problem of lookup_enum function goes away. the question really whether including those headers is enough to catch that the user is building against a broken babeltrace, or whether the test should try something more. -- Pedro Alves