From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27102 invoked by alias); 6 Mar 2005 22:07:26 -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 26592 invoked from network); 6 Mar 2005 22:07:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 6 Mar 2005 22:07:22 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.44 #1 (Debian)) id 1D83uA-0003fj-Gt for ; Sun, 06 Mar 2005 17:07:18 -0500 Date: Sun, 06 Mar 2005 22:07:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Ada and the "start" command Message-ID: <20050306220718.GA14101@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: gdb@sources.redhat.com References: <20050306213337.GA13156@nevyn.them.org> <20050306213511.GA13223@nevyn.them.org> <20050306214421.GL1750@adacore.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050306214421.GL1750@adacore.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040907i X-SW-Source: 2005-03/txt/msg00067.txt.bz2 On Sun, Mar 06, 2005 at 01:44:21PM -0800, Joel Brobecker wrote: > > > 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? Or we could politely ask Elena again, and KFAIL the tests - that's my prefered solution. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery, LLC