From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18336 invoked by alias); 14 Dec 2015 10:52:11 -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 18325 invoked by uid 89); 14 Dec 2015 10:52:10 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD 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; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 10:52:10 +0000 Received: from int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.24]) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E1A5BC813; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 10:52:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id tBEAq7ls028336; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 05:52:08 -0500 Message-ID: <566E9F57.4070607@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 10:52:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Sandra Loosemore , gdb-patches Subject: Re: [patch, testsuite] fix problems in gdb.base/paginate-bg-execution.exp References: <55FC6B86.8090700@codesourcery.com> <560AA30A.6080202@redhat.com> <566E04E9.7010501@codesourcery.com> In-Reply-To: <566E04E9.7010501@codesourcery.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2015-12/txt/msg00260.txt.bz2 On 12/13/2015 11:53 PM, Sandra Loosemore wrote: > Hmmmm. If an actual code change is required here (instead of just a > testsuite fix), I'll split this off and try to deal with it separately. Thanks. I do think a code change is required here. It should be a simple one, I believe. > I had an older patch that dealt with most of these that I hadn't pushed > upstream yet. :") I also found that a few of the things on your list > were already being skipped for other reasons on the target I was testing > on, and I'd missed a couple that were failing via ERROR instead of FAIL. > Here's a revised patch that should take care of everything -- OK to > commit this one? OK. Thanks, Pedro Alves