From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mark Kettenis To: msnyder@redhat.com Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: FAIL: gdb.base/finish.exp: finish from char_func Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 04:50:00 -0000 Message-id: <200012211250.eBLCoDW16364@delius.kettenis.local> X-SW-Source: 2000-12/msg00122.html Hi Michael, Running the testsuite on i586-pc-linux-gnu gives me the following failure: FAIL: gdb.base/finish.exp: finish from char_func >From the .log file I see that the output is: Value returned is $1 = 49 '1'^M which looks OK to me. But in finish.exp there is the following regular expression: ".*Value returned is .* = 1 '.001'\r\n$gdb_prompt $" which I don't understand at all. I would expect something like: ".*Value returned is .* = \[0123456789\]* '1'\r\n$gdb_prompt $" (since you wouldn't want to assume that the character set in use is ASCII). What's up? Mark >From fnasser@cygnus.com Thu Dec 21 07:41:00 2000 From: Fernando Nasser To: Mark Kettenis Cc: msnyder@redhat.com, gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: FAIL: gdb.base/finish.exp: finish from char_func Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 07:41:00 -0000 Message-id: <3A422457.E71B48FF@cygnus.com> References: <200012211250.eBLCoDW16364@delius.kettenis.local> X-SW-Source: 2000-12/msg00123.html Content-length: 1131 This change would make this test very weak. What target are you talking about and what character set? We can add an "if" for this case until GDB adopts some official way to handle different character sets. Some mechanism to handle that without loosen the tests too much will have to be devised then. Fernando Mark Kettenis wrote: > > Hi Michael, > > Running the testsuite on i586-pc-linux-gnu gives me the following failure: > > FAIL: gdb.base/finish.exp: finish from char_func > > >From the .log file I see that the output is: > > Value returned is $1 = 49 '1'^M > > which looks OK to me. But in finish.exp there is the following > regular expression: > > ".*Value returned is .* = 1 '.001'\r\n$gdb_prompt $" > > which I don't understand at all. I would expect something like: > > ".*Value returned is .* = \[0123456789\]* '1'\r\n$gdb_prompt $" > > (since you wouldn't want to assume that the character set in use is > ASCII). > > What's up? > > Mark -- Fernando Nasser Red Hat Canada Ltd. E-Mail: fnasser@redhat.com 2323 Yonge Street, Suite #300 Toronto, Ontario M4P 2C9 >From fnasser@cygnus.com Thu Dec 21 09:24:00 2000 From: Fernando Nasser To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com, "Frank Ch. Eigler" Subject: Re: RFC: Change to gdb/README Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 09:24:00 -0000 Message-id: <3A423C88.6C2402C6@cygnus.com> References: <3A3A8368.1AB607D@cygnus.com> <4839-Sat16Dec2000004058+0200-eliz@is.elta.co.il> X-SW-Source: 2000-12/msg00124.html Content-length: 1551 I believe I have addressed Eli and Frank comments. Here it is: --------- You can build GDB right in the source directory: cd gdb-5.0 ./configure make cp gdb/gdb /usr/local/bin/gdb (or wherever you want) However, we recommend that an empty directory be used instead. This way you do not clutter your source tree with binary files and will be able to create different builds with different configuration options. You can build GDB in any empty build directory: mkdir build cd build /gdb-5.0/configure make --------- Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > > Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 20:47:36 +0000 > > From: Fernando Nasser > > > > It will be much easier if people build in a separate directory. > > > > Is it OK to change the instructions in the gdb/README file to > > somewhat favor that choice? > > I think it is a good idea, but I would suggest to say a couple of > words _why_ this is the recommended alternative. Otherwise, the > following text: > > > You can build GDB right in the source directory: > > > > cd gdb-5.0 > > ./configure > > make > > cp gdb/gdb /usr/local/bin/gdb (or wherever you want) > > > > However, we recommend that an empty directory be used instead: > > Leaves the naive reader wondering why one way is recommended more than > the other. -- Fernando Nasser Red Hat Canada Ltd. E-Mail: fnasser@redhat.com 2323 Yonge Street, Suite #300 Toronto, Ontario M4P 2C9 >From msnyder@redhat.com Thu Dec 21 09:52:00 2000 From: Michael Snyder To: Mark Kettenis Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: FAIL: gdb.base/finish.exp: finish from char_func Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 09:52:00 -0000 Message-id: <3A424382.35B3FA6@redhat.com> References: <200012211250.eBLCoDW16364@delius.kettenis.local> X-SW-Source: 2000-12/msg00125.html Content-length: 1279 Mark Kettenis wrote: > > Hi Michael, > > Running the testsuite on i586-pc-linux-gnu gives me the following failure: > > FAIL: gdb.base/finish.exp: finish from char_func > > >From the .log file I see that the output is: > > Value returned is $1 = 49 '1'^M > > which looks OK to me. But in finish.exp there is the following > regular expression: > > ".*Value returned is .* = 1 '.001'\r\n$gdb_prompt $" > > which I don't understand at all. Oops. My fault. I was playing with two different versions of the test before I checked it in: one which returned the value \001, and one that returned the ascii character '1'. I obviously checked in the c code for one and the regular expression for the other. > I would expect something like: > > ".*Value returned is .* = \[0123456789\]* '1'\r\n$gdb_prompt $" > > (since you wouldn't want to assume that the character set in use is > ASCII). Well, the ASCII character set is assumed pretty widely in these tests. And I'm not really aware of GDB ever being ported to a platform with a non-ASCII character set. Tell you what. I will change it so that first it's consistant, second it expects an ASCII character, and finally it will pass but with a remark for a non-ASCII character. Back to you in a minute... >From msnyder@redhat.com Thu Dec 21 09:57:00 2000 From: Michael Snyder To: Fernando Nasser Cc: Mark Kettenis , gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: FAIL: gdb.base/finish.exp: finish from char_func Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 09:57:00 -0000 Message-id: <3A4244A5.C69DB96A@redhat.com> References: <200012211250.eBLCoDW16364@delius.kettenis.local> <3A422457.E71B48FF@cygnus.com> X-SW-Source: 2000-12/msg00126.html Content-length: 1550 Fernando Nasser wrote: > > This change would make this test very weak. > > What target are you talking about and what character set? Fernando, FYI, the fail was due to my checking in an inconsistent set of sources. The RE was expecting the value \001, while the program was returning the character '1'. > > We can add an "if" for this case until GDB adopts some official way > to handle different character sets. Some mechanism to handle that > without loosen the tests too much will have to be devised then. I'll get back to you with a change that I hope will answer Marks issues and yours. Although I seriously don't expect GDB to work with a non-ASCII character set... > Mark Kettenis wrote: > > > > Hi Michael, > > > > Running the testsuite on i586-pc-linux-gnu gives me the following failure: > > > > FAIL: gdb.base/finish.exp: finish from char_func > > > > >From the .log file I see that the output is: > > > > Value returned is $1 = 49 '1'^M > > > > which looks OK to me. But in finish.exp there is the following > > regular expression: > > > > ".*Value returned is .* = 1 '.001'\r\n$gdb_prompt $" > > > > which I don't understand at all. I would expect something like: > > > > ".*Value returned is .* = \[0123456789\]* '1'\r\n$gdb_prompt $" > > > > (since you wouldn't want to assume that the character set in use is > > ASCII). > > > > What's up? > > > > Mark > > -- > Fernando Nasser > Red Hat Canada Ltd. E-Mail: fnasser@redhat.com > 2323 Yonge Street, Suite #300 > Toronto, Ontario M4P 2C9 >From kettenis@wins.uva.nl Thu Dec 21 11:52:00 2000 From: Mark Kettenis To: msnyder@redhat.com Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: FAIL: gdb.base/finish.exp: finish from char_func Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 11:52:00 -0000 Message-id: <200012211952.eBLJqXM26693@delius.kettenis.local> References: <200012211250.eBLCoDW16364@delius.kettenis.local> <3A424382.35B3FA6@redhat.com> X-SW-Source: 2000-12/msg00127.html Content-length: 806 Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 09:53:06 -0800 From: Michael Snyder > I would expect something like: > > ".*Value returned is .* = \[0123456789\]* '1'\r\n$gdb_prompt $" > > (since you wouldn't want to assume that the character set in use is > ASCII). Well, the ASCII character set is assumed pretty widely in these tests. And I'm not really aware of GDB ever being ported to a platform with a non-ASCII character set. Tell you what. I will change it so that first it's consistant, second it expects an ASCII character, and finally it will pass but with a remark for a non-ASCII character. To be honest, I don't really care about platforms with non-ASCII character sets. I just thought others might. Your patch looks fine to me. Thanks! Mark >From lecturas_recomendadas@uol.com.ar Thu Dec 21 22:30:00 2000 From: Lecturas Recomendadas To: gdb@sourceware.cygnus.com Subject: Dossier Secreto: Nuevas revelaciones sobre Verbitsky, Firmenich y Monte Chingolo Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 22:30:00 -0000 Message-id: <20001222041135.7FF33FCA4@moon.taurus.com> X-SW-Source: 2000-12/msg00128.html Content-length: 3607 Estimados lectores, Editorial Sudamericana acaba de publicar mi libro, Dossier Secreto, El Mito de la "Guerra Sucia" en la Argentina en una edicion ctualizada y definitiva. El mismo se lo puede adquirir en las principales librerias, a traves el sitio WEB de la editorial (www.edsudamericana.com.ar). La version definitiva de Dossier Secreto contiene, entre otras cosas, nuevas revelaciones sobre la "colaboracion eficaz" prestada por el ex-oficial guerrillero, el periodista Horacio Verbitsky, a un trabajo publicado en 1979 por el Circulo de la Fuerza Aerea, es decir, en plena dictadura militar, al mismo regimen castrense que Verbitsky decia oponerse. Los memoriosos acordaran que ha sido el propio Verbitsky quien no ha ahorrado criticas sobre las personas que colaboraron con la represion ilegal, o que no tuvieron una fuerte decision para enfrentarla. Dossier Secreto tambien revela en forma definitiva quien fue la fuente mas importante para mi denuncia de que el jefe montonero Mario Firmenich fue un colaborador del Ejercito argentino durante el gobierno de Isabel Peron y tambien durante la dictadura militar. La fuente, Robert Scherrer, agente del FBI que se desempeno como agregado legal en la embajada norteamericana entre 1972-1979, fue el mismo que desenmascaro al regimen del Cap. General Augusto Pinochet como autor del asesinato del ex-canciller chileno Orlando Letelier en Washington, D.C. en 1976, y como el arquitecto del siniestro Plan Condor. La nueva edicion de Dossier Secreto contiene ademas informacion inedita suministrada por el entonces jefe del Primer Cuerpo del Ejercito, el Gral. Albano Harguindeguy, sobre como los militares argentinos detectaron con anticipacion los planes de ataque del Ejercito Revolucionario de Pueblo (ERP) al cuartel militar de Monte Chingolo en diciembre de 1975.. Es interesante notar que el Gral. Alberto Valin, el jefe militar que informo a la embajada norteamericana a traves de Scherrer, que fue el mismo que manejo a Firmenich para el Batallon 601 de Inteligencia, y tambien fue el responsable por la infiltracion al ERP, obra que facilito la obtencion, en forma dramatica y sigilosa, de la informacion necesaria para frustrar el ataque al cuartel de Monte Chingolo. Dijo el dirigente de derechos humanos Emilio Mignone, ahora fallecido, del Dossier Secreto: "Coincido con todas sus apreciaciones. La argumentacion sobre Firmenich es moralmente convincente." El New York Times alabo a Dossier Secreto como "Un tour de fuerza.." El senador Edward Kennedy dijo: "Como puede ser que una de las naciones mas civilizadas en la faz de la Tierra fuera arrasada por un reinado de terror tan sangriento y barbaro? Que fue lo que causo el secuestro, la tortura y el asesinato de miles de ciudadanos inocentes? En su historia extraordinaria de esa epoca horrible, Mick Andersen ha ofrecido nuevas pruebas y nuevas repuestas a estas preguntas inquietantes." Pagina/12 dijo: "Lectura recomendada por si uno no estaba, o si estando no veia, o viendo no escuchaba, o escuchando no entendia, o si a pesar de todo algo se le olvido (Lo cual no es improbable pues nadie quiere recordar el horror.)" Estimado lector, espero que lo encuentre de interes. Saludos, Martin "Mick" Andersen 5606 Bay Breeze Court Churchton, Maryland 20733 Bajo el decreto S.1618 titulo 3ro. Aprobado por el 105 congreso base de las normativas internacionales sobre SPAM, un E-mail no podra ser considerado SPAM mientras incluya una forma de ser removido Si desea ser borrado de nuestras Bases o no recibir nuestros Mails, responda este mail con el subject Borrar.