From: Patrick Palka <patrick@parcs.ath.cx>
To: Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com>
Cc: "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" <gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [COMMITTED] Fix PR gdb/17820
Date: Fri, 15 May 2015 21:22:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CA+C-WL_r_vNp-4KnzkdJ3pzQCd9cLNSiobMBcwjA9o+35GDcUw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5556316F.2000808@redhat.com>
On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 1:48 PM, Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 05/15/2015 06:26 PM, Patrick Palka wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Sorry for the trigger-happy pun. I didn't mean to sound
> rude or put you off. I certainly do not hate your work. :-)
No problem, I had not inferred any rude intentions.
>
> I was just thinking that someone not familiar with the
> testsuite's history might consider obvious to change the test
> names one by one, while we avoid that nowadays in some cases
> (like described below).
Yeah, I was planning on exactly that!
>
>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>
> Excellent, thanks.
>
> --
> Pedro Alves
>
prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-05-15 21:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-05-13 13:29 Patrick Palka
2015-05-15 16:05 ` Pedro Alves
2015-05-15 17:04 ` Patrick Palka
2015-05-15 18:33 ` [PATCH v2] Fix gdb.base/gdbinit-history.exp when HISTSIZE is set in the environment (Re: [PATCH] [COMMITTED] Fix PR gdb/17820) Pedro Alves
2015-05-15 21:43 ` Patrick Palka
2015-05-19 9:59 ` Pedro Alves
2015-05-15 17:10 ` [PATCH] [COMMITTED] Fix PR gdb/17820 Patrick Palka
2015-05-15 17:17 ` Pedro Alves
2015-05-15 17:27 ` Patrick Palka
2015-05-15 17:48 ` Pedro Alves
2015-05-15 21:22 ` Patrick Palka [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=CA+C-WL_r_vNp-4KnzkdJ3pzQCd9cLNSiobMBcwjA9o+35GDcUw@mail.gmail.com \
--to=patrick@parcs.ath.cx \
--cc=gdb-patches@sourceware.org \
--cc=palves@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox