From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9076 invoked by alias); 24 Sep 2009 22:07:11 -0000 Received: (qmail 9061 invoked by uid 22791); 24 Sep 2009 22:07:11 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SARE_MSGID_LONG40,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-yw0-f201.google.com (HELO mail-yw0-f201.google.com) (209.85.211.201) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 24 Sep 2009 22:07:04 +0000 Received: by ywh39 with SMTP id 39so2406674ywh.12 for ; Thu, 24 Sep 2009 15:07:03 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.151.5.19 with SMTP id h19mr880626ybi.67.1253830023013; Thu, 24 Sep 2009 15:07:03 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <8ba6bed40903051731s41c9183aha18af51113f3c0ea@mail.gmail.com> <20090306173345.GI3744@adacore.com> <200903061913.43419.pedro@codesourcery.com> <8ba6bed40903070407q3e91f0ffs6fc67b2b9c329081@mail.gmail.com> <8ba6bed40903080716k3fbeb56t5605aef1864b26a3@mail.gmail.com> <8ba6bed40903081910t695c9d93jc34ba1c5d2793a2e@mail.gmail.com> <8ba6bed40909110443v61597c4ci7effd224ce26f937@mail.gmail.com> <20090924005319.GD5134@adacore.com> <8ba6bed40909240124u26f24397p39a1fd0d61462451@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 22:07:00 -0000 Message-ID: <8ba6bed40909241507m65930b52o4fbdf48eb192dafd@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: gdb.objc/objcdecode.exp test error.. From: Matt Rice To: tromey@redhat.com Cc: Joel Brobecker , gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Kai Tietz Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-IsSubscribed: yes 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: 2009-09/txt/msg00761.txt.bz2 On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 11:22 AM, Tom Tromey wrote: >>>>>> "Matt" == Matt Rice writes: > > Matt> I agree, I've sent an email to the discuss-gnustep asking for > Matt> feedback... > Matt> the thread is here: > Matt> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.gnustep.general/33219 > > That thread pointed out this unreviewed patch: > > http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb/2009-03/msg00099.html > > I don't know whether this one is still relevant... Kai, is it? > Yeah, it appears to be the same assertion which my tests are hitting, this one goes about it by attempting to allow breakpoint_re_set to return ambiguous results, and doesn't look like it will work without debug symbols