Re: [PATCH] [COMMITTED] Fix PR gdb/17820

[Pedro Alves <palves at redhat dot com>]

On 05/15/2015 06:26 PM, Patrick Palka wrote:
> 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.

Sorry for the trigger-happy pun.  I didn't mean to sound
rude or put you off.  I certainly do not hate your work.  :-)

I was just thinking that someone not familiar with the
testsuite's history might consider obvious to change the test
names one by one, while we avoid that nowadays in some cases
(like described below).

> 
>>
>> 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.

Excellent, thanks.

-- 
Pedro Alves