From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27299 invoked by alias); 30 Mar 2012 17:58:28 -0000 Received: (qmail 27288 invoked by uid 22791); 30 Mar 2012 17:58:26 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-7.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_PGP_SIGNED,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_WL X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from relay1.mentorg.com (HELO relay1.mentorg.com) (192.94.38.131) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 30 Mar 2012 17:57:59 +0000 Received: from nat-dem.mentorg.com ([195.212.93.2] helo=eu2-mail.mgc.mentorg.com) by relay1.mentorg.com with esmtp id 1SDg5F-0002ci-Tr from Thomas_Schwinge@mentor.com ; Fri, 30 Mar 2012 10:57:58 -0700 Received: from feldtkeller.schwinge.homeip.net ([172.30.64.79]) by eu2-mail.mgc.mentorg.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Fri, 30 Mar 2012 19:57:56 +0200 From: Thomas Schwinge To: Kevin Buettner Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [SH] gdb.arch/gdb1291.exp, gdb.arch/gdb1431.exp In-Reply-To: <20120327215213.232d5857@mesquite.lan> References: <87fwcze2w7.fsf@schwinge.name> <20120327215213.232d5857@mesquite.lan> User-Agent: Notmuch/0.9-101-g81dad07 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/23.3.1 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 17:58:00 -0000 Message-ID: <87d37uas4x.fsf@schwinge.name> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" 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 X-SW-Source: 2012-03/txt/msg01054.txt.bz2 --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-length: 862 Hi! On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 21:52:13 -0700, Kevin Buettner wrot= e: > On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 16:46:32 +0100 > Thomas Schwinge wrote: >=20 > > Exactly the same for gdb.arch/gdb1431.exp: their source files > > (gdb.arch/gdb1291.s, gdb.arch/gdb1431.s) are identical, and I first > > propose to get rid of one of them: > >=20 > > gdb/testsuite/ > >=20 > > * gdb.arch/gdb1431.s: Remove file. > > * gdb.arch/gdb1431.exp (srcfile): Refer to gdb1291.s. >=20 > I don't know enough about the tests in question to say whether > this is a good approach or not. Apparently nobody else does, too. ;-) > Is there a chance that someone > will want to tweak the code for one of the test cases without > also having to tweak the other? No, given what they're testing, I don't expect this would ever happen. Gr=C3=BC=C3=9Fe, Thomas --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-length: 489 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJPdfQPAAoJENuKOtuXzphJtCYIAJ/FYRhetCge+RyMOVUR8Mvp +uhJMArKn4lvND8g2ZHcQOjjylgR4gdcVwI/yEGFXn9MZrwuEmhxjqNWPB0NYq1f rEW1/4BHZIOcRMg8ib8l0eynTXxjqgnBoKjYZMAvCg7MfiO6DP7YF0d8P0dKylSU fuX7VasR+MWnT3ZDNkoR0lWAsU2l4MwTT01AvRfkIUky9sb7kQdh6fVzDtCaHTAG McHmoRm3MUdMPA0ZlJB8HhtcLlmxizpVMuV5oGVAiczu4e2RSh3BCxTbPyoT5BWI 6YfJVN9ZeL4Ejgzz67beMfC49tWDpBTfaOB07VIY4Wt19m2Bnd+EEJ/XWKtkj9w= =EBXg -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--