From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29624 invoked by alias); 2 May 2002 07:02:48 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 29429 invoked from network); 2 May 2002 07:02:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO zwingli.cygnus.com) (208.245.165.35) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 2 May 2002 07:02:47 -0000 Received: by zwingli.cygnus.com (Postfix, from userid 442) id 539CF5EA11; Thu, 2 May 2002 02:02:46 -0500 (EST) To: Michael Elizabeth Chastain Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: RFA: test for GDB C++ STABS problem References: <200205020426.g424QEw29432@duracef.shout.net> From: Jim Blandy Date: Thu, 02 May 2002 00:02:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <200205020426.g424QEw29432@duracef.shout.net> Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2002-05/txt/msg00026.txt.bz2 Michael Elizabeth Chastain writes: > This patch is approved, with one optional change request. That is to say, > you can commit it as is, or you can make the change. > > The optional change is to add an initialization for "var_in_b" > to a nonzero value such as 100. That way, the test is less likely > to succeed by accident. I tried this and it did not affect the > test results. Well, we're really testing that the command completes at all, not that it does anything in particular before it returns. But you're right that zero is an inauspicious value; I've made the change, and committed the patch. > As always, I appreciate your essays in the comment section. It's nice to know somebody reads them!