From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-return-21982-listarch-gdb=sources.redhat.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 5130 invoked by alias); 27 Jun 2005 21:03:02 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-subscribe@sources.redhat.com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb@sources.redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-help@sources.redhat.com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com
Received: (qmail 5109 invoked by uid 22791); 27 Jun 2005 21:02:56 -0000
Received: from nevyn.them.org (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17)
    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.30-dev) with ESMTP; Mon, 27 Jun 2005 21:02:56 +0000
Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.51)
	id 1Dn0kg-0008IP-Do; Mon, 27 Jun 2005 17:02:46 -0400
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 21:03:00 -0000
From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
To: Nick Roberts <nickrob@snap.net.nz>
Cc: Bob Rossi <bob@brasko.net>, Mark Kettenis <kettenis@gnu.org>,
	gdb@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: MI-related testsuite regressions
Message-ID: <20050627210245.GA31836@nevyn.them.org>
Mail-Followup-To: Nick Roberts <nickrob@snap.net.nz>,
	Bob Rossi <bob@brasko.net>, Mark Kettenis <kettenis@gnu.org>,
	gdb@sourceware.org
References: <200506270815.j5R8FZO6026261@jop31.nfra.nl> <17087.60064.541364.938844@farnswood.snap.net.nz> <20050627130030.GA10394@nevyn.them.org> <17088.1264.104928.522819@farnswood.snap.net.nz> <20050627135610.GA19376@white> <17088.2134.821855.942376@farnswood.snap.net.nz> <20050627143110.GA31108@nevyn.them.org> <17088.26499.347383.779593@farnswood.snap.net.nz>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <17088.26499.347383.779593@farnswood.snap.net.nz>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.8i
X-SW-Source: 2005-06/txt/msg00265.txt.bz2

On Tue, Jun 28, 2005 at 08:54:27AM +1200, Nick Roberts wrote:
> Daniel Jacobowitz writes:
>  > On Tue, Jun 28, 2005 at 02:08:22AM +1200, Nick Roberts wrote:
>  > > If thats the case, shouldn't the code read:
>  > > 
>  ...
> 
>  > > 
>  > > as it stands the mi-*.exp don't test mi3.
>  > 
>  > Probably, but I don't see much point in changing that until we have
>  > some content for mi3.
> 
> 
> This could equally be said for having separate tests mi-*.exp and mi2-*.exp.

It ensures that we don't develop unacceptable content in the existing
mi2 without noticing, as far as I'm concerned.

The existance of mi2-* maps to the fact that the protocol was released.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery, LLC