From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28332 invoked by alias); 4 Dec 2017 15:55:21 -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 28298 invoked by uid 89); 4 Dec 2017 15:55:21 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=Hx-languages-length:800 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Mon, 04 Dec 2017 15:55:20 +0000 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx03.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.13]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3A3595D68C; Mon, 4 Dec 2017 15:55:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn04.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.4]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94B056FEE8; Mon, 4 Dec 2017 15:55:18 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [RFA] Fix regression in "commands" To: Tom Tromey References: <20171103190747.389-1-tom@tromey.com> <3a860acf-6e64-b2ba-e3fd-560406077259@redhat.com> <87r2se5qv0.fsf@tromey.com> Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org From: Pedro Alves Message-ID: Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2017 15:55:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <87r2se5qv0.fsf@tromey.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2017-12/txt/msg00080.txt.bz2 On 12/01/2017 04:56 PM, Tom Tromey wrote: >>>>>> "Pedro" == Pedro Alves writes: > > Pedro> I wonder whether gdb.base/commands.exp is a better home for this. > > That file has some tests of "commands" but also is a grab-bag of testing > random commands. I don't think the name specifically has to do with the > "commands" command; so unless you feel strongly about it, I'll just > leave it in break.exp. Right, I wasn't thinking about the "commands" command specifically -- I think that testcase is more about the support for user-defined commands / scripting than about random commands, and there are some tests in there about breakpoint commands. But really I don't feel strongly about it at all. break.exp is fine. Thanks, Pedro Alves