From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 97780 invoked by alias); 18 Mar 2015 19:37:23 -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 97768 invoked by uid 89); 18 Mar 2015 19:37:22 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD 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 (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Wed, 18 Mar 2015 19:37:20 +0000 Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t2IJbHtx007511 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 18 Mar 2015 15:37:18 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.11]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t2IJbFDO006977; Wed, 18 Mar 2015 15:37:16 -0400 Message-ID: <5509D3EB.5000100@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2015 19:37:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Breazeal, Don" , "Breazeal, Don" , "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH] Tighten gdb.base/disp-step-syscall.exp References: <54C566F2.2020302@codesourcery.com> <1424997977-13316-1-git-send-email-donb@codesourcery.com> <54F4C5A4.40503@redhat.com> <55089A33.7020007@codesourcery.com> In-Reply-To: <55089A33.7020007@codesourcery.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2015-03/txt/msg00554.txt.bz2 Hi Don, On 03/17/2015 09:18 PM, Breazeal, Don wrote: > Hi Pedro, > This patch makes sense to me, and it has been working great for me while > debugging my updates to the follow-fork patchset. We will need to > update this once the remote follow patches are committed, I guess, > since presumably the kfail 13796 will be resolved then. Alright, might as well push it in then. I've done that now. Thanks, Pedro Alves