From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29263 invoked by alias); 20 Aug 2009 14:32:02 -0000 Received: (qmail 29245 invoked by uid 22791); 20 Aug 2009 14:32:01 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from NaN.false.org (HELO nan.false.org) (208.75.86.248) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 20 Aug 2009 14:31:53 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1762F108C6; Thu, 20 Aug 2009 14:31:50 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (209.195.188.212.nauticom.net [209.195.188.212]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 978D01072B; Thu, 20 Aug 2009 14:31:49 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Me8g6-0004iF-Si; Thu, 20 Aug 2009 10:31:46 -0400 Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 14:50:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Jakob Engblom Cc: tromey@redhat.com, 'Pedro Alves' , gdb@sourceware.org, 'Michael Snyder' Subject: Re: gdb reverse execution: how to actually run tests for it? Message-ID: <20090820143146.GA18099@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Jakob Engblom , tromey@redhat.com, 'Pedro Alves' , gdb@sourceware.org, 'Michael Snyder' References: <002001ca1f0e$4c9b74a0$e5d25de0$@com> <200908171251.07179.pedro@codesourcery.com> <024f01ca209e$02d81e40$08885ac0$@com> <200908191328.57310.pedro@codesourcery.com> <016201ca2163$11e994c0$35bcbe40$@com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <016201ca2163$11e994c0$35bcbe40$@com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) 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: 2009-08/txt/msg00198.txt.bz2 On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 08:54:31AM +0200, Jakob Engblom wrote: > So is it OK if we submit a kit of tests which are structured in the same way as > the current reverse tests? Then we can deal with upgrading the tests later, once > the board file requirements has been fixed? Yes, I think that's a good general rule - this problem won't get any harder by the addition of another test. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery