This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH] [COMMITTED] Fix PR gdb/17820
- From: Patrick Palka <patrick at parcs dot ath dot cx>
- To: Pedro Alves <palves at redhat dot com>
- Cc: "gdb-patches at sourceware dot org" <gdb-patches at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Fri, 15 May 2015 13:26:37 -0400
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] [COMMITTED] Fix PR gdb/17820
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <1431523782-20409-1-git-send-email-patrick at parcs dot ath dot cx> <55561958 dot 2030105 at redhat dot com> <CA+C-WL8-4+26m7mAccN4rQZzwiN1PZJ+H=piNqFMjv=SSdgcZQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <55562A28 dot 9050503 at redhat dot com>
On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 1:17 PM, Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 05/15/2015 06:09 PM, Patrick Palka wrote:
>> On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 12:05 PM, Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com> wrote:
>>> Hi Patrick,
>>>
>>> I noticed that the buildbots are showing that this new test is failing:
>>>
>>> https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-testers/2015-q2/msg04164.html
>>>
>>> ~~~
>>> ============================
>>> new FAIL: gdb.base/gdbinit-history.exp: show commands <<2>>
>>> new FAIL: gdb.base/gdbinit-history.exp: show history size
>>> new FAIL: gdb.base/gdbinit-history.exp: show history size <<2>>
>>
>> Also the tests in this file have duplicate names.. That's undesirable
>> right? If so I could make the names unique.
>
> Yes. I should have spotted that earlier.
>
>> Would such a change fall under the "obvious" rule?
>
> Not sure, depends on how you would fix it. :-) Apply the test
> described in MAINTAINERS. :-)
So it will probably not be obvious because of naming preferences.
>
> There are a couple ways to address that. In cases like
> this test, where we have a function that called multiple
> times, the modern way is to use with_test_prefix to wrap the
> function call or the function body, which then also covers
> FAILs issued from within gdb_start, etc.
Cool.. I will do something like that.