From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29651 invoked by alias); 21 Apr 2013 02:03:06 -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 29637 invoked by uid 89); 21 Apr 2013 02:03:04 -0000 X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-4.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,KHOP_RCVD_TRUST,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_YE autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 Received: from mail-oa0-f47.google.com (HELO mail-oa0-f47.google.com) (209.85.219.47) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.84/v0.84-167-ge50287c) with ESMTP; Sun, 21 Apr 2013 02:03:02 +0000 Received: by mail-oa0-f47.google.com with SMTP id n9so5039572oag.34 for ; Sat, 20 Apr 2013 19:03:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.182.246.198 with SMTP id xy6mr6767807obc.1.1366509781194; Sat, 20 Apr 2013 19:03:01 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.60.13.133 with HTTP; Sat, 20 Apr 2013 19:02:21 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <87bo9awjgf.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> References: <87bo9awjgf.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> From: Hui Zhu Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2013 06:19:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix bug 15293 Ignore-count does not work properly with dprintf To: Tom Tromey Cc: gdb-patches ml Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-SW-Source: 2013-04/txt/msg00642.txt.bz2 On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 12:53 AM, Tom Tromey wrote: >>>>>> "Hui" == Hui Zhu writes: > > Hui> This patch fix http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15293 > Hui> Also I update dprintf.exp for this bug. > Hui> Please help me review it. > > After this patch, "ignore" doesn't cause the program to stop -- this > part seems correct. > > But it seems to me that "ignore" should make the "dprintf" not print > anything at all. Otherwise, what is being ignored? If dprintf is not ignore, it will stop, print and continue. If ignore, it will not stop. So it will not print anything. > > Hui> +gdb_test "ignore \$bpnum 1" ".*Will ignore next crossing of breakpoint.*" > > I was surprised to find that this didn't interfere with the "info break" > test later on. Because after breakpoint pass this ignore, it will not show in "info break" > > Tom