From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4035 invoked by alias); 27 Apr 2012 20:23:02 -0000 Received: (qmail 4025 invoked by uid 22791); 27 Apr 2012 20:23:01 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 27 Apr 2012 20:22:47 +0000 Received: from int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.25]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q3RKMlqw013921 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Fri, 27 Apr 2012 16:22:47 -0400 Received: from barimba (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q3RKMj5R012848 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 27 Apr 2012 16:22:46 -0400 From: Tom Tromey To: Sergio Durigan Junior Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4 v3] Documentation and testsuite changes References: <87haw52bzf.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2012 20:32:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <87haw52bzf.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> (Tom Tromey's message of "Fri, 27 Apr 2012 13:47:32 -0600") Message-ID: <87sjfo2acq.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.95 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain 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: 2012-04/txt/msg01036.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Tom" == Tom Tromey writes: Tom> I think it would be preferable if each different set of tests used a Tom> different name for the built executable. This sort of thing makes it Tom> simpler to debug failing tests. Also I think it is a newly agreed-upon Tom> convention. I neglected to mention, this is ok with that change. Tom