From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 61987 invoked by alias); 1 Dec 2018 08:04:09 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 61977 invoked by uid 89); 1 Dec 2018 08:04:09 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy= X-HELO: mx1.suse.de Received: from mx2.suse.de (HELO mx1.suse.de) (195.135.220.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Sat, 01 Dec 2018 08:04:08 +0000 Received: from relay2.suse.de (unknown [195.135.220.254]) by mx1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9838AECD; Sat, 1 Dec 2018 08:04:04 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [gdb/testsuite] Add gdb-caching-proc.exp testcase To: Tom Tromey Cc: Pedro Alves , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20181004174015.GA20307@delia> <20181009134747.GA1742@delia> <87tvjymjli.fsf@tromey.com> From: Tom de Vries Message-ID: <8e9cd071-89de-ea62-6434-eebbcbd9ac28@suse.de> Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2018 08:04:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <87tvjymjli.fsf@tromey.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2018-12/txt/msg00002.txt.bz2 On 30-11-18 20:49, Tom Tromey wrote: >>>>>> "Tom" == Tom de Vries writes: > > Tom> 2018-10-09 Tom de Vries > Tom> * gdb.base/gdb-caching-proc.exp: New file. > > Thanks for the patch. I didn't see a review or see this go in, so > hopefully this isn't redundant. > Hi Tom, indeed this was not reviewed yet. > Tom> +# Test gdb_caching_proc NAME > Tom> +proc test_proc { name } { > Tom> + set real_name gdb_real__$name > Tom> + > Tom> + set first [$real_name] > Tom> + lappend resultlist $first > > I think this lappend is unnecessary... > > Tom> + set resultlist [list] > > ... because resultlist is reset here. > But maybe you intended to hoist this earlier? Yep, I did, fixed in the commit. > Either way is fine by me. > > This is ok with this nit addressed. Thanks for the review. - Tom