From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32266 invoked by alias); 10 Mar 2012 02:55:53 -0000 Received: (qmail 32258 invoked by uid 22791); 10 Mar 2012 02:55:52 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,TW_GJ X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from relay1.mentorg.com (HELO relay1.mentorg.com) (192.94.38.131) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sat, 10 Mar 2012 02:55:27 +0000 Received: from svr-orw-fem-01.mgc.mentorg.com ([147.34.98.93]) by relay1.mentorg.com with esmtp id 1S6CSs-0002Mu-G4 from Maciej_Rozycki@mentor.com ; Fri, 09 Mar 2012 18:55:26 -0800 Received: from SVR-IES-FEM-01.mgc.mentorg.com ([137.202.0.104]) by svr-orw-fem-01.mgc.mentorg.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Fri, 9 Mar 2012 18:55:25 -0800 Received: from [172.30.13.50] (137.202.0.76) by SVR-IES-FEM-01.mgc.mentorg.com (137.202.0.104) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.289.1; Sat, 10 Mar 2012 02:55:23 +0000 Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2012 02:55:00 -0000 From: "Maciej W. Rozycki" To: Keith Seitz CC: Pedro Alves , Subject: Re: [PATCH] remote: Fix a crash on longjmp breakpoint removal In-Reply-To: <4F57C9A2.7050809@redhat.com> Message-ID: References: <4F57C92F.7010501@redhat.com> <4F57C9A2.7050809@redhat.com> User-Agent: Alpine 1.10 (DEB 962 2008-03-14) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" 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: 2012-03/txt/msg00362.txt.bz2 On Wed, 7 Mar 2012, Keith Seitz wrote: > > py-finish-breakpoint.exp was failing against gdbserver without the fix. Hmm, is this test case general enough to be run in all the relevant configurations -- i.e. is there no special provision for Python support required? > > I don't mind adding a new test. Keith's was using gdb_expect, which we > > very much like to avoid. Can it be made to use gdb_test or > > gdb_test_multiple? > > I should think so. The test is pretty simple. I just keep forgetting about > gdb_test_multiple! Keith, would you care updating your test case then? I'm going to be away for two weeks and won't be able to look into it any sooner. Maciej