From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14163 invoked by alias); 25 Oct 2013 17:03:36 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 14151 invoked by uid 89); 25 Oct 2013 17:03:35 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Fri, 25 Oct 2013 17:03:35 +0000 Received: from int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r9PH3XQ8032728 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Fri, 25 Oct 2013 13:03:34 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.11]) by int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r9PH3WdW012326; Fri, 25 Oct 2013 13:03:33 -0400 Message-ID: <526AA464.5070803@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 17:03:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130625 Thunderbird/17.0.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tom Tromey CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 11/17] introduce relative_filename and use it References: <1382129374-18344-1-git-send-email-tromey@redhat.com> <1382129374-18344-12-git-send-email-tromey@redhat.com> <526A9AA4.1040304@redhat.com> <87hac547zo.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <87hac547zo.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2013-10/txt/msg00812.txt.bz2 On 10/25/2013 05:42 PM, Tom Tromey wrote: > Pedro> It seems like gdb.base/hashline2.exp doesn't actually use > Pedro> relative_filename. Was that a mistake? > > I looked, and it was intentional. > The test case is supposed to use absolute file names here. > I've corrected the ChangeLog entry. Thanks, sounds good. -- Pedro Alves