Re: [PATCH] [COMMITTED] Fix PR gdb/17820

[Patrick Palka <patrick@parcs.ath.cx>]

On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 1:17 PM, Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 05/15/2015 06:09 PM, Patrick Palka wrote:
>> On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 12:05 PM, Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com> wrote:
>>> Hi Patrick,
>>>
>>> I noticed that the buildbots are showing that this new test is failing:
>>>
>>>  https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-testers/2015-q2/msg04164.html
>>>
>>> ~~~
>>> ============================
>>> new FAIL: gdb.base/gdbinit-history.exp: show commands <<2>>
>>> new FAIL: gdb.base/gdbinit-history.exp: show history size
>>> new FAIL: gdb.base/gdbinit-history.exp: show history size <<2>>
>>
>> Also the tests in this file have duplicate names.. That's undesirable
>> right?  If so I could make the names unique.
>
> Yes.  I should have spotted that earlier.
>
>> Would such a change fall under the "obvious" rule?
>
> Not sure, depends on how you would fix it. :-)  Apply the test
> described in MAINTAINERS.  :-)

So it will probably not be obvious because of naming preferences.

>
> There are a couple ways to address that.  In cases like
> this test, where we have a function that called multiple
> times, the modern way is to use with_test_prefix to wrap the
> function call or the function body, which then also covers
> FAILs issued from within gdb_start, etc.

Cool.. I will do something like that.