From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30657 invoked by alias); 3 May 2013 15:24:51 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 30645 invoked by uid 89); 3 May 2013 15:24:49 -0000 X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-9.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_WL,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.84/v0.84-167-ge50287c) with ESMTP; Fri, 03 May 2013 15:24:48 +0000 Received: from int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.25]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r43FNxTG027445 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 3 May 2013 11:23:59 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.11]) by int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r43F0E8O030534; Fri, 3 May 2013 11:00:15 -0400 Message-ID: <5183D0FE.6060105@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 03 May 2013 15:24:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130311 Thunderbird/17.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andreas Arnez CC: gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: gdb.arch vs. gdb.base gcore test cases References: <8761z0gvr7.fsf@br87z6lw.de.ibm.com> <51839F41.2050101@redhat.com> <87wqrgfble.fsf@br87z6lw.de.ibm.com> <5183C304.7010002@redhat.com> <87k3ngdsq7.fsf@br87z6lw.de.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <87k3ngdsq7.fsf@br87z6lw.de.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2013-05/txt/msg00022.txt.bz2 On 05/03/2013 03:48 PM, Andreas Arnez wrote: > Pedro Alves writes: > >> Did you check the original patch submission description in the >> mailing list archives for a possible rationale? > > Here's the associated patch submission: > http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2010-04/msg00534.html > > It doesn't seem to contain a rationale for the system-gcore test case. > >> Given that "system" is a predefined register group, I think >> "info reg system" works on all targets, though it might come >> out empty if no register is actually in that group on a given >> target. That seems fine for this test. > > Right, that's what I thought. Then why didn't you say so from the get go? ;-) Thus a patch like this should make > gcore-system.exp obsolete (untested): Okay with a ChangeLog entry, and if it passes testing. Thanks, -- Pedro Alves