From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca by simark.ca with LMTP id IJMvBS6WvGGADAAAWB0awg (envelope-from ) for ; Fri, 17 Dec 2021 08:52:46 -0500 Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id 03F171F0CE; Fri, 17 Dec 2021 08:52:46 -0500 (EST) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on simark.ca X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, NICE_REPLY_A autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from sourceware.org (server2.sourceware.org [8.43.85.97]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5A5281EDEE for ; Fri, 17 Dec 2021 08:52:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CAA9B385842F for ; Fri, 17 Dec 2021 13:52:44 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mail-wr1-f48.google.com (mail-wr1-f48.google.com [209.85.221.48]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8A3043858D28 for ; Fri, 17 Dec 2021 13:52:34 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 8A3043858D28 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=palves.net Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com Received: by mail-wr1-f48.google.com with SMTP id a18so4193485wrn.6 for ; Fri, 17 Dec 2021 05:52:34 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:mime-version:user-agent:subject :content-language:to:cc:references:from:in-reply-to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=1SWMeS6rqCaBvqzN8AgNOCfxnZimLuT6oXKFfNcT16w=; b=lnpb52wiXKCBSyXN66RAy4aDcfheu+zjT0/D7uhXGDOVxnOGYv0WMy54Z5Tr/iG9ie E9IQX55TVUUwb2Lt4ENxppe1ijg9SJL0YJRDukHxFIW4AfjIWfEVE0jrjCEKIwfX9hVV f2ZPjknqDVAJnVq1JE/UQB7UlUupr5n4sCgvQAH12O5sgq5N/7WgiNhCGeozkt6ON0Nb lpclawjNHDZgk1M3uAkOvqQzYUvRYXQyjrog2GmkAzk0W1KDnZ1KC4+CXy1KHMODoEq8 mzUnN2/AjyW2T0lFo80PlOOEsWzhmKR1qOi5xCl09qo30rI9qrzjlP1VIbD9IX/7sf8N uBPw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530jGJWTpXPUvdks/Bj2PO3TaKomkSm5DYx9+s9q5n22WAnCwhJ4 dDU3MJsP0kqsRs8LkrcDiLo= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyM/AFCFYWDc0eS3X2rIuH0vO6zq/2aP1hV8YGaG6ly1anZ+6SrVG60F1LmlzQ89htVJkdrsg== X-Received: by 2002:adf:c992:: with SMTP id f18mr2591606wrh.574.1639749153596; Fri, 17 Dec 2021 05:52:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?IPV6:2001:8a0:f912:1a00:fb57:3faf:e98:b979? ([2001:8a0:f912:1a00:fb57:3faf:e98:b979]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id u9sm6497432wmm.7.2021.12.17.05.52.32 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 17 Dec 2021 05:52:32 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <6fe8a297-f17d-b36c-640a-8f861e5abf10@palves.net> Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2021 13:52:31 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.4.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/12] gdb/testsuite: Remove duplicates from gdb.mi/mi-nonstop-exit.exp Content-Language: en-US To: Lancelot SIX References: <20211126230038.103225-1-lsix@lancelotsix.com> <20211126230038.103225-9-lsix@lancelotsix.com> <82c036ab-e9ee-ce09-498e-c419c84a58cd@palves.net> <20211216234754.3bgibio4sb7hujom@Plymouth> From: Pedro Alves In-Reply-To: <20211216234754.3bgibio4sb7hujom@Plymouth> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: gdb-patches@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Errors-To: gdb-patches-bounces+public-inbox=simark.ca@sourceware.org Sender: "Gdb-patches" On 2021-12-16 23:48, Lancelot SIX wrote: >>> There is a slight modification of behaviour introduced by this patch. >>> mi_delete_breakpoints is called one more time just before quitting gdb, >>> which is in my opinion is worth given the simplification. >> >> It's much more typical to delete breakpoints _before_ running to main. I.e., >> putting the "restart" code at the beginning. If that works, I'd mildly prefer that. >> >> This is OK either way. >> > > I have changed this, and the test still happy. > OK.