From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8997 invoked by alias); 6 Mar 2005 21:44:27 -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 8982 invoked from network); 6 Mar 2005 21:44:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO priv-edtnes46.telusplanet.net) (199.185.220.240) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 6 Mar 2005 21:44:23 -0000 Received: from takamaka.act-europe.fr ([142.179.108.108]) by priv-edtnes46.telusplanet.net (InterMail vM.6.01.04.00 201-2131-118-20041027) with ESMTP id <20050306214422.OXFR29897.priv-edtnes46.telusplanet.net@takamaka.act-europe.fr> for ; Sun, 6 Mar 2005 14:44:22 -0700 Received: by takamaka.act-europe.fr (Postfix, from userid 507) id EAE8F47DC0; Sun, 6 Mar 2005 13:44:21 -0800 (PST) Date: Sun, 06 Mar 2005 21:44:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Ada and the "start" command Message-ID: <20050306214421.GL1750@adacore.com> References: <20050306213337.GA13156@nevyn.them.org> <20050306213511.GA13223@nevyn.them.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050306213511.GA13223@nevyn.them.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-SW-Source: 2005-03/txt/msg00066.txt.bz2 > > Do any of the gdb.ada tests pass for you, using a clean GDB tree? My > > impression is that the "start" command, upon which they all rely, can > > not possibly work in FSF GDB. There's ada_main_name, which correctly > > digs the name out of the executable, but it isn't hooked up to > > anything. So "start" always goes to "main". > > > > If the tests can't work in this tree, they should be disabled. I'm not > > sure what the plan for ada_main_name is. > > Scratch the last sentence; I found the pending patch on gdb-patches. I > still do not like tests which will not yet pass being added to the > source tree. I know what you mean. At the time the test was added, the test was supposed to be failing for a short period of time, because it was felt that the problem be fixed quickly (we had discussed on how we were going to hook that up and agreed on a plan). Since then, Elena jumped in, approved almost everything, except one bit. I answered her message, but never received any response, even after a couple of pings. We can do two things: Either have somebody else than Elena approve (or comment) on the patch, or KFAIL the tests. Do you think you can approve the rest of the patch? -- Joel