From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 88722 invoked by alias); 15 May 2015 17:48:38 -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 88705 invoked by uid 89); 15 May 2015 17:48:37 -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 17:48:36 +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 t4FHmYUi012012 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 15 May 2015 13:48:34 -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 t4FHmW3P027130; Fri, 15 May 2015 13:48:33 -0400 Message-ID: <5556316F.2000808@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 15 May 2015 17:48:00 -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> <55562A28.9050503@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2015-05/txt/msg00407.txt.bz2 On 05/15/2015 06:26 PM, Patrick Palka wrote: > On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 1:17 PM, Pedro Alves wrote: >> 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. :-) > > So it will probably not be obvious because of naming preferences. Sorry for the trigger-happy pun. I didn't mean to sound rude or put you off. I certainly do not hate your work. :-) I was just thinking that someone not familiar with the testsuite's history might consider obvious to change the test names one by one, while we avoid that nowadays in some cases (like described below). > >> >> 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. > > Cool.. I will do something like that. Excellent, thanks. -- Pedro Alves