From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca by simark.ca with LMTP id vWGXJMzG1WHlVAAAWB0awg (envelope-from ) for ; Wed, 05 Jan 2022 11:26:52 -0500 Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id 85F221EE18; Wed, 5 Jan 2022 11:26:52 -0500 (EST) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on simark.ca X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, NICE_REPLY_A,RDNS_DYNAMIC autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from sourceware.org (ip-8-43-85-97.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 E5BA41E61F for ; Wed, 5 Jan 2022 11:26:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41FDD3858439 for ; Wed, 5 Jan 2022 16:26:51 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mail-wr1-f45.google.com (mail-wr1-f45.google.com [209.85.221.45]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3C9C9385841A for ; Wed, 5 Jan 2022 16:23:59 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 3C9C9385841A 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-f45.google.com with SMTP id e5so84133249wrc.5 for ; Wed, 05 Jan 2022 08:23:59 -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=rcO0NFHmUJ7Z5CMXeHpKuABZ4N4RUVh3NHgfUF3mzzk=; b=qYvE77SKUuJ5fUIFdbYEsho38IEABzJTyfeELM7Heyf7LgaMne3Pp0q3eMjGca/iZP fKclW6jz+LskTCLV0I73n+Pdi/eNIsjDdT5M3pdKtSL0f3UYLm4UiFrQpuT2il2xOUgT 7Y1X7xXvXaB2I1vOPli3UmEuHi+xHaGEtMcFp27jS4ldxHiEtNa04uW9qx4hCVKvsH8Y Pmj47QVtM9EOuTWbMOz7ktnX8BsYTbGLS+1lTIiOOFU96DB96hnZLk3q2yUoRhITzbuE GZF7VS0Dl0aatBX9vSeu8XrZiBYsrnjK0WrJk1wTxif4kLwZMf9B41xgbihL/wDVavO5 vRPg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531HrElaojHKKuItK1qTlWB6U7q/9jT/iuJP1+D5LxmyJFD0hCBW W2KU1WxfQFneX0GNYhrLB9GKQ/5qvxc= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJy7LCj4DIyRXW6vy3deuYHAfqGlBrfmN3d8L9Bsfq+5OAtqaDLVsISROEy85O6nGk2B8vhqVQ== X-Received: by 2002:adf:ba8b:: with SMTP id p11mr46199858wrg.390.1641399838321; Wed, 05 Jan 2022 08:23:58 -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 b13sm42301776wrh.32.2022.01.05.08.23.56 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 05 Jan 2022 08:23:57 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <849b2eb9-6fe4-b0f5-cb55-579ff425d05a@palves.net> Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2022 16:23:55 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.4.1 Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/29] Remove DUPLICATEs from testsuite/gdb.base/*.exp Content-Language: en-US To: Lancelot SIX References: <20211121175636.779325-1-lsix@lancelotsix.com> <6a859188-8e54-4053-6e20-d6e50091bbd5@palves.net> <20211218003939.tbizhc7qbuhyq5dr@Plymouth> From: Pedro Alves In-Reply-To: <20211218003939.tbizhc7qbuhyq5dr@Plymouth> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit 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 2021-12-18 00:39, Lancelot SIX wrote: >> I reviewed all patches except patch #15 (gdb.base/complete-empty.exp). I left that for >> last as I think I'll need look a bit in more detail, but I ran out of time for now. >> I sent a few comments. Patches that I didn't comment on (other than #15) looks >> OK to me. >> >> Thanks a lot for doing this. >> > > Hi, > > I do not know if you have had a chance to look an #15, I hadn't, sorry, been mostly traveling / out of office since. > but I think > I have another approach you might prefer. Instead of going around the > testing framework in the testcase, it improves the completion testing > framework. > > See below the alternative approach. > > Let me know what you think. Indeed, I like this much better! Thanks. This is OK.