From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp.polymtl.ca (smtp.polymtl.ca [132.207.4.11]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 26DE73841924 for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2022 15:21:29 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 26DE73841924 Received: from simark.ca (simark.ca [158.69.221.121]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp.polymtl.ca (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id 23BFLNNT023552 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 11 Apr 2022 11:21:28 -0400 DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp.polymtl.ca 23BFLNNT023552 Received: from [172.16.0.95] (192-222-180-24.qc.cable.ebox.net [192.222.180.24]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 49ACB1ED17; Mon, 11 Apr 2022 11:21:23 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <50541dee-428e-86b2-0a07-b0873adb6613@polymtl.ca> Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2022 11:21:22 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.7.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH][gdb/testsuite] Make gdb.base/annota1.exp more robust Content-Language: tl To: Tom de Vries , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20220405134732.GA32701@delia> <4a85ab96-c18f-9409-0b8b-68caca2e3e74@suse.de> From: Simon Marchi In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Poly-FromMTA: (simark.ca [158.69.221.121]) at Mon, 11 Apr 2022 15:21:23 +0000 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3033.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, DKIM_VALID_EF, NICE_REPLY_A, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL, SPF_HELO_PASS, SPF_PASS, TXREP, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE 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: Mon, 11 Apr 2022 15:21:34 -0000 > Pushed, but now that I reply here I see I didn't fully read the rationale for the patch you posted, and didn't follow up on that, apologies for that. > > So, perhaps you're right, perhaps we don't care about the order (though it would be nice for me to understand why we don't care). > > I understood the matching in the test-case to be very loose due to having to juggle mostly the variance in non-annotation output. So I decided to "fix" this by being as strict as possible in matching annotations, and as simple as possible in matching non-annotations. > > I hope the committed patch will be sufficient though. > > I you think there's still an issue, then I can revert and apply your patch. I'm happy with your explanation and your patch. It seems to fix the issue I observed, it's possible that I did not analyze the problem correctly. Thanks! Simon