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 17:21:35 -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> <CA+C-WL9YoNNcWLpwvo5B4C1s0ef=5EXh08oUcOzTek_WWYK7ew at mail dot gmail dot com> <5556316F dot 2000808 at redhat dot com>
On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 1:48 PM, Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com> wrote:
> 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. :-)
No problem, I had not inferred any rude intentions.
>
> 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).
Yeah, I was planning on exactly that!
>
>>
>>>
>>> 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
>