From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5042 invoked by alias); 18 Jul 2011 15:15:33 -0000 Received: (qmail 5031 invoked by uid 22791); 18 Jul 2011 15:15:31 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-7.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS,TW_GD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 18 Jul 2011 15:15:05 +0000 Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p6IFF50J028799 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Mon, 18 Jul 2011 11:15:05 -0400 Received: from ns3.rdu.redhat.com (ns3.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.255.199]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p6IFF4kY023625; Mon, 18 Jul 2011 11:15:05 -0400 Received: from barimba (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by ns3.rdu.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p6IFF32f013648; Mon, 18 Jul 2011 11:15:04 -0400 From: Tom Tromey To: Keith Seitz Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [3/4] RFC: add missing quote to test References: <4E20860A.9020402@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 15:33:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <4E20860A.9020402@redhat.com> (Keith Seitz's message of "Fri, 15 Jul 2011 11:25:14 -0700") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain 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: 2011-07/txt/msg00422.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Keith" == Keith Seitz writes: Keith> On 07/15/2011 11:08 AM, Tom Tromey wrote: Tom> Note the unpaired single quote in the test name. Keith> Yeah, that's clearly a mistake. Thanks. I'm checking this in now. Tom> I don't know why this works without -gdwarf-4. I think it is a test Tom> suite bug -- and in any case not something we want to bless by having it Tom> in the test suite. Keith> Using the same tree? That is unexpected. Otherwise, I could pretty Keith> easily attribute this to linespec.c churn. Yes, same tree: make check RUNTESTFLAGS='--target_board unix/gdb:debug_flags=-gdwarf-4 static-method.exp' [...] FAIL: gdb.cp/static-method.exp: list 'static-method.cc':xxx::(anonymous namespace)::A::func' # of expected passes 11 # of unexpected failures 1 make check RUNTESTFLAGS='static-method.exp' # of expected passes 12 Tom