From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28946 invoked by alias); 8 Jul 2004 03:23:25 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 28898 invoked from network); 8 Jul 2004 03:23:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO barry.mail.mindspring.net) (207.69.200.25) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 8 Jul 2004 03:23:24 -0000 Received: from user-119a90a.biz.mindspring.com ([66.149.36.10] helo=berman.michael-chastain.com) by barry.mail.mindspring.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 1BiPVL-0003XS-00; Wed, 07 Jul 2004 23:23:23 -0400 Received: by berman.michael-chastain.com (Postfix, from userid 502) id 555FE4B104; Wed, 7 Jul 2004 23:23:33 -0400 (EDT) To: cagney@gnu.org, mec.gnu@mindspring.com Subject: Re: duplicate test message style? Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com Message-Id: <20040708032333.555FE4B104@berman.michael-chastain.com> Date: Thu, 08 Jul 2004 03:23:00 -0000 From: mec.gnu@mindspring.com (Michael Elizabeth Chastain) X-SW-Source: 2004-07/txt/msg00059.txt.bz2 ac> PASS: gdb.base/sigbpt.exp: nopass SIGSEGV; stepi bp before segv ac> PASS: gdb.base/sigbpt.exp: nopass SIGSEGV, stepi bp before segv ac> PASS: gdb.base/sigbpt.exp: nopass SIGSEGV for stepi bp before segv This rubs me the wrong way because it's a distinction that humans would not make. ac> PASS: gdb.base/sigbpt.exp: nopass SIGSEGV; stepi bp before segv ac> PASS: gdb.base/sigbpt.exp: set breakpoint 0 of 1; stepi bp before segv ac> PASS: gdb.base/sigbpt.exp: stepi out of handler; stepi bp before segv ac> PASS: gdb.base/sigbpt.exp: clear breakpoint 0 of 1; stepi bp before segv This is okay. ac> PASS: gdb.base/sigbpt.exp: stepi bp before segv; nopass SIGSEGV ac> PASS: gdb.base/sigbpt.exp: stepi bp before segv; set breakpoint 0 of 1 ac> PASS: gdb.base/sigbpt.exp: stepi bp before segv; stepi out of handler ac> PASS: gdb.base/sigbpt.exp: stepi bp before segv; clear breakpoint 0 of 1 This is also okay. So if you have a preference, between the two, pick the one you want. I have a slight preference for the second form. Here's why. If I ever notice the message, it's usually a context where I need to dig in and and analyze it. I think it would be a little easier for me to search off the "outer; inner" style rather than the "inner; outer style". But both of them are pretty searchable so either is okay. Michael C