From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30475 invoked by alias); 7 Nov 2008 22:43:36 -0000 Received: (qmail 30342 invoked by uid 22791); 7 Nov 2008 22:43:34 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from smtp-out.google.com (HELO smtp-out.google.com) (216.239.33.17) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 07 Nov 2008 22:42:54 +0000 Received: from wpaz37.hot.corp.google.com (wpaz37.hot.corp.google.com [172.24.198.101]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id mA7Mgip6003011 for ; Fri, 7 Nov 2008 22:42:44 GMT Received: from rv-out-0708.google.com (rvfb17.prod.google.com [10.140.179.17]) by wpaz37.hot.corp.google.com with ESMTP id mA7Mggtb014299 for ; Fri, 7 Nov 2008 14:42:43 -0800 Received: by rv-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id b17so2764472rvf.42 for ; Fri, 07 Nov 2008 14:42:42 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.141.177.2 with SMTP id e2mr2057048rvp.269.1226097761716; Fri, 07 Nov 2008 14:42:41 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20081030030147.GB3635@adacore.com> References: <20081021190500.BB7251C7954@localhost> <200810271252.35628.pedro@codesourcery.com> <20081030030147.GB3635@adacore.com> Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2008 22:43:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RFA] Move -nx from GDBFLAGS to INTERNAL_GDBFLAGS in testsuite From: Doug Evans To: Joel Brobecker , Pedro Alves , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes 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: 2008-11/txt/msg00140.txt.bz2 On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 7:01 PM, Joel Brobecker wrote: >> I like the idea of this patch. I tend to use "set GDBFLAGS foo" in >> my boardfiles myself. >> >> What do others think of it? > > Seems like a good idea to me as well. That's consistent with what > we do in the Makefile, I believe. > >> > +# INTERNAL_GDBFLAGS contains flags that the testsuite requires. >> > +# ??? Perhaps -nw should go here too. Dunno. >> >> Personally, I'd decide/chose one, and remove this comment. If >> you leave it in, we're doomed to stare and be annoyed by >> it forever. :-) > > I would put the -nw in INTERNAL_GDBCFLAGS as well. Except maybe for > the doing some TUI-specific testing, I don't see us testing the > debugger in graphical mode. Any other comments? Can I check it in after moving -nw into INTERNAL_GDBCFLAGS?