From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30673 invoked by alias); 29 Jun 2011 13:36:20 -0000 Received: (qmail 30543 invoked by uid 22791); 29 Jun 2011 13:36:19 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD 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; Wed, 29 Jun 2011 13:36:01 +0000 Received: from int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p5TDZvES032728 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 29 Jun 2011 09:35:58 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p5TDZsQp032156; Wed, 29 Jun 2011 09:35:55 -0400 From: Phil Muldoon To: "Andrew Burgess" Cc: "gdb-patches\@sourceware.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH] Check skip_cplus_tests for gdb.python/py-template.exp References: <4E0B18AD.3040100@broadcom.com> Reply-to: pmuldoon@redhat.com X-URL: http://www.redhat.com Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2011 13:36:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <4E0B18AD.3040100@broadcom.com> (Andrew Burgess's message of "Wed, 29 Jun 2011 13:21:01 +0100") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii 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: 2011-06/txt/msg00445.txt.bz2 "Andrew Burgess" writes: > The test gdb.python/py-template.exp compiles a c++ test, if feels like > we shouldn't be attempting this if the skip_cplus_test function > returns true. > > The patch is below, OK to apply? As this seems fairly obvious I'll > apply in a few days unless someone asks me not too. I cannot give you approval, but it looks fine to me. I suspect this falls under the "obvious change" rule, though. Cheers, Phil