From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15962 invoked by alias); 4 Feb 2003 22:16:12 -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 15955 invoked from network); 4 Feb 2003 22:16:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO jackfruit.Stanford.EDU) (171.64.38.136) by 172.16.49.205 with SMTP; 4 Feb 2003 22:16:11 -0000 Received: (from carlton@localhost) by jackfruit.Stanford.EDU (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h14MG3000874; Tue, 4 Feb 2003 14:16:03 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: jackfruit.Stanford.EDU: carlton set sender to carlton@math.stanford.edu using -f To: Jim Blandy Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [Jim Blandy ] RFA: Check that `Local' is not in scope when it shouldn't be References: From: David Carlton Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2003 22:16:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.4 (Common Lisp) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2003-02/txt/msg00148.txt.bz2 On 04 Feb 2003 16:53:48 -0500, Jim Blandy said: > David Carlton originally asked: >> I'm confused: don't you want to do the first 'ptype Local' _before_ >> going up from foobar? In which case your added test might as well >> happen after you go up from foobar but before running to marker2. > The test doesn't go up from foobar; it goes up from marker1, which is > called from foobar, so the "up" makes foobar the current scope. Oh, duh, sorry about that. > Michael Chastain corrected the way I'd written the second kfail > patch. I believe I've done it right this time --- so that if the > output changes from the current known incorrect output to anything > other than the correct output, the known failure will become a > straight failure. Right. > I couldn't figure out, though, why folks were advising me to use > setup_kfail with a pattern that always matches, instead of simply > calling kfail directly. So I just used kfail. Yes, kfail is better. Approved; thanks for taking care of this. My list of non-{PASS,KFAIL}s in gdb.c++ is dwindling nicely. David Carlton carlton@math.stanford.edu