From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 80319 invoked by alias); 15 May 2015 17:17:33 -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 80308 invoked by uid 89); 15 May 2015 17:17:32 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=no 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, 15 May 2015 17:17:32 +0000 Received: from int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t4FHHTY1028658 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 15 May 2015 13:17:29 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.11]) by int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t4FHHSbU011499; Fri, 15 May 2015 13:17:29 -0400 Message-ID: <55562A28.9050503@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 15 May 2015 17:17:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Patrick Palka CC: "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH] [COMMITTED] Fix PR gdb/17820 References: <1431523782-20409-1-git-send-email-patrick@parcs.ath.cx> <55561958.2030105@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2015-05/txt/msg00404.txt.bz2 On 05/15/2015 06:09 PM, Patrick Palka wrote: > On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 12:05 PM, Pedro Alves wrote: >> Hi Patrick, >> >> I noticed that the buildbots are showing that this new test is failing: >> >> https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-testers/2015-q2/msg04164.html >> >> ~~~ >> ============================ >> new FAIL: gdb.base/gdbinit-history.exp: show commands <<2>> >> new FAIL: gdb.base/gdbinit-history.exp: show history size >> new FAIL: gdb.base/gdbinit-history.exp: show history size <<2>> > > Also the tests in this file have duplicate names.. That's undesirable > right? If so I could make the names unique. Yes. I should have spotted that earlier. > Would such a change fall under the "obvious" rule? Not sure, depends on how you would fix it. :-) Apply the test described in MAINTAINERS. :-) There are a couple ways to address that. In cases like this test, where we have a function that called multiple times, the modern way is to use with_test_prefix to wrap the function call or the function body, which then also covers FAILs issued from within gdb_start, etc. Thanks, Pedro Alves