From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19461 invoked by alias); 11 Jul 2014 11:04:01 -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 19426 invoked by uid 89); 11 Jul 2014 11:03:59 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Fri, 11 Jul 2014 11:03:57 +0000 Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s6BB3tpp001062 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 11 Jul 2014 07:03:55 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.11]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s6BB3rac019234; Fri, 11 Jul 2014 07:03:54 -0400 Message-ID: <53BFC498.7010700@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 11:11:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Yao Qi , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH][testsuite] Match symbol on address 0x0 References: <1405066663-1395-1-git-send-email-yao@codesourcery.com> <53BFAE35.3040206@redhat.com> <53BFC162.8010407@codesourcery.com> In-Reply-To: <53BFC162.8010407@codesourcery.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2014-07/txt/msg00259.txt.bz2 On 07/11/2014 11:50 AM, Yao Qi wrote: > On 07/11/2014 05:28 PM, Pedro Alves wrote: >> > Indeed that seems like an irrelevant detail for the purpose of >> > the test. Wouldn't just doing "set print symbol off" work? > Oh, it works indeed! How about this? OK. Thanks, -- Pedro Alves