From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-return-34887-listarch-gdb=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 24301 invoked by alias); 5 Jul 2009 19:02:39 -0000
Received: (qmail 24029 invoked by uid 22791); 5 Jul 2009 19:02:39 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 	tests=AWL,BAYES_00
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from sibelius.xs4all.nl (HELO sibelius.xs4all.nl) (82.92.89.47)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sun, 05 Jul 2009 19:02:33 +0000
Received: from brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl (kettenis@localhost [127.0.0.1]) 	by brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n65J1Cnx002968; 	Sun, 5 Jul 2009 21:01:12 +0200 (CEST)
Received: (from kettenis@localhost) 	by brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) id n65J1BlW003294; 	Sun, 5 Jul 2009 21:01:11 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Sun, 05 Jul 2009 19:02:00 -0000
Message-Id: <200907051901.n65J1BlW003294@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl>
From: Mark Kettenis <mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl>
To: pedro@codesourcery.com
CC: gdb@sourceware.org, mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl
In-reply-to: <200907042212.23474.pedro@codesourcery.com> (message from Pedro 	Alves on Sat, 4 Jul 2009 22:12:22 +0100)
Subject: Re: annota1.exp
References: <200907042030.n64KUxnJ025659@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <200907042212.23474.pedro@codesourcery.com>
Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2009-07/txt/msg00028.txt.bz2

> From: Pedro Alves <pedro@codesourcery.com>
> Date: Sat, 4 Jul 2009 22:12:22 +0100
> 
> On Saturday 04 July 2009 21:30:59, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> > Hi folks,
> > 
> > I'm seeing new failures in annota1.exp (on OpenBSD/i386 at least):
> > 
> > FAIL: gdb.base/annota1.exp: send SIGUSR1
> 
> Hmmm, sounds suspiciously related, or does it look like you have
> a new issue masking that other one?
> 
>  http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb/2009-02/msg00080.html
> 
> There's now a reinit_frame_cache call in regcache_write_pc.
> Did you revert Daniel's patch in your tree perhaps?  That
> would account for the extra "frames-invalid" output, I guess.

I still have the reversion of Daniel's change in my tree, and it does
indeed account for the reordering.