From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com [148.163.156.1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 944993858D28 for ; Fri, 29 Apr 2022 19:15:54 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 944993858D28 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098396.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.17.1.5/8.17.1.5) with ESMTP id 23TJDcXx016064; Fri, 29 Apr 2022 19:13:50 GMT Received: from pps.reinject (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3frp07r01v-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 29 Apr 2022 19:13:50 +0000 Received: from m0098396.ppops.net (m0098396.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by pps.reinject (8.17.1.5/8.17.1.5) with ESMTP id 23TJDnxC016380; Fri, 29 Apr 2022 19:13:49 GMT Received: from ppma01dal.us.ibm.com (83.d6.3fa9.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [169.63.214.131]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3frp07r01n-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 29 Apr 2022 19:13:49 +0000 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma01dal.us.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma01dal.us.ibm.com (8.16.1.2/8.16.1.2) with SMTP id 23TJ8nXG012895; Fri, 29 Apr 2022 19:13:48 GMT Received: from b03cxnp08028.gho.boulder.ibm.com (b03cxnp08028.gho.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.130.20]) by ppma01dal.us.ibm.com with ESMTP id 3fm93bej1k-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 29 Apr 2022 19:13:48 +0000 Received: from b03ledav004.gho.boulder.ibm.com (b03ledav004.gho.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.130.235]) by b03cxnp08028.gho.boulder.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 23TJDkiF22806884 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 29 Apr 2022 19:13:46 GMT Received: from b03ledav004.gho.boulder.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B0F878064; Fri, 29 Apr 2022 19:13:46 +0000 (GMT) Received: from b03ledav004.gho.boulder.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C0007805C; Fri, 29 Apr 2022 19:13:46 +0000 (GMT) Received: from li-e362e14c-2378-11b2-a85c-87d605f3c641.ibm.com (unknown [9.211.152.172]) by b03ledav004.gho.boulder.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Fri, 29 Apr 2022 19:13:46 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <117e54956e10755d19aeff2936600dfb89f3b1cf.camel@us.ibm.com> From: Carl Love To: Pedro Alves , Keith Seitz , Lancelot SIX Cc: Ulrich Weigand , gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Rogerio Alves Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2022 12:13:45 -0700 In-Reply-To: References: <5ee342cd5f5272da9970da8a077c2c5209b85d6c.camel@us.ibm.com> <20220429091234.62xhprge74gfpgks@ubuntu.lan> <4610920e52ea1bbeb5181c970887eb7cfe344f1a.camel@us.ibm.com> <032437ea-2ef4-90f5-7b96-8a729bae2252@redhat.com> <31261461-8f2a-8919-c882-3601a9adefd9@palves.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.28.5 (3.28.5-18.el8) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-GUID: GdksRE--k2P608MVvnkOGRLD48i5o4UV X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: A3EguspXD9q0uYil1b9fOo7q7Z7qlIsv Subject: RE: [PATCH] Fix gdb.cp/no-dmgl-verbose.exp test X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=baseguard engine=ICAP:2.0.205,Aquarius:18.0.858,Hydra:6.0.486,FMLib:17.11.64.514 definitions=2022-04-29_09,2022-04-28_01,2022-02-23_01 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 clxscore=1015 adultscore=0 bulkscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxscore=0 spamscore=0 mlxlogscore=911 priorityscore=1501 phishscore=0 suspectscore=0 malwarescore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2202240000 definitions=main-2204290099 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_EF, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_NONE, TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: gdb-patches@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2022 19:15:55 -0000 GDB maintaners, Pedro, Lancelot: I am not much of a C++ programer. I will have to admit that there is a fair bit of the deep C++ behaviour with old/new APIs in Pedro's post that is beyond me. :-) Sorry. Additionally, there is concern that the name of the test is not accurate, etc. So at this point, not sure where to go with fixing this test. I seem to have opened a real can of worms. Suggestions on how to move forward, remove the test, go with a minimal change to get the test to pass, do a rewrite/name change, .... ? Carl Love