From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31379 invoked by alias); 16 Sep 2002 14:57:07 -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 31364 invoked from network); 16 Sep 2002 14:57:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO touchme.toronto.redhat.com) (216.138.202.10) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 16 Sep 2002 14:57:05 -0000 Received: from redhat.com (tooth.toronto.redhat.com [172.16.14.29]) by touchme.toronto.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CBA0B8831; Mon, 16 Sep 2002 10:57:04 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3D85F0F3.5060108@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 07:57:00 -0000 From: Fernando Nasser Organization: Red Hat Canada User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.0.0) Gecko/20020607 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: Michael Elizabeth Chastain , gdb@sources.redhat.com, Andrew Cagney , carlton@math.stanford.edu Subject: Re: Pinging Michael C References: <20020914045436.GA22119@nevyn.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-09/txt/msg00202.txt.bz2 I am assuming you all have looked at the C++ side of these tests... Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > Michael, > > Are you still around and at this address? I haven't heard from you in some > time, and David Carlton's C++ testsuite patches from August are still > awaiting review: > http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2002-08/msg00695.html I wonder if next will relly be more reliable. Anyway, we can try -- the test is not about breakpoints. The following ChangeLog entries need some more info though: * gdb.c++/m-static.cc: Add test 4. * gdb.c++/m-static.h: New file. * gdb.c++/m-static1.cc: New file. > http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2002-08/msg00472.html I don't think we want to add tests to make gdb dump core to the testsuite right away. It should go in as soon as someone fixes the problem to prevent a regression. Alternatively we can add it in and explicitly skip the test with a explicit call to the kfail proc... I don't see anything wrong with the test file itself, but the ChangeLog also needs some more info (what the new files do/test). * gdb.c++/printmethod.exp: New file. * gdb.c++/printmethod.cc: New file. > http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2002-08/msg00469.html > I was talking to Andrew about collecting these regression tests into a single file (someone would eventually move them into one of the other files if the test can be associated with some feature). Andrew, what was the name of the file? I forgot... Again, the test s OK but the ChangeLog entries need more info. P.S.: If this is not fixed yet please use setup_kfail and refer to appropriate Gnats bug report. > As is one of Jim Blandy's: > http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2002-08/msg00670.html Nice! Just needs a correct ChangeLog entry in the proper format and at least mentioning what the new tests are for (although one could guess from the file names, but we don't usually rely on that). Regards to all, Fernando -- Fernando Nasser Red Hat Canada Ltd. E-Mail: fnasser@redhat.com 2323 Yonge Street, Suite #300 Toronto, Ontario M4P 2C9