From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10791 invoked by alias); 9 Sep 2007 21:55:35 -0000 Received: (qmail 10782 invoked by uid 22791); 9 Sep 2007 21:55:35 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from NaN.false.org (HELO nan.false.org) (208.75.86.248) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Sun, 09 Sep 2007 21:55:30 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEEE398308; Sun, 9 Sep 2007 21:55:30 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD44698100; Sun, 9 Sep 2007 21:55:30 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1IUUkZ-0005xX-4j; Sun, 09 Sep 2007 17:55:27 -0400 Date: Sun, 09 Sep 2007 22:26:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Mark Kettenis Cc: gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: What happended to sepdebug.exp? Message-ID: <20070909215527.GA22886@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Mark Kettenis , gdb@sourceware.org References: <200709092149.l89Ln4pK017577@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200709092149.l89Ln4pK017577@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.15 (2007-04-09) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2007-09/txt/msg00095.txt.bz2 On Sun, Sep 09, 2007 at 11:49:04PM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote: > On OpenBSD I'm seeing the following testsuite regression/freakout: I noticed something similar today while testing ia64-linux. > 1. The "PASS: debuglink: XXXX" look wrong to me, do people see those > on other systems too? I've been meaning to fix this. See the pf_prefix setting. It should go in each individual test name, instead, like we do in other testcases. > 2. This test should fail a bit more graceful if the necessary > toolchain support is missing. > > The diff below addresses the second issue. Does it look reasonable? It does to me! -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery