From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 65241 invoked by alias); 27 Mar 2019 03:34:47 -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 65224 invoked by uid 89); 27 Mar 2019 03:34:46 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-3.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 spammy= X-HELO: eggs.gnu.org Received: from eggs.gnu.org (HELO eggs.gnu.org) (209.51.188.92) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Wed, 27 Mar 2019 03:34:43 +0000 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:39002) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1h8zKq-0002y8-VN; Tue, 26 Mar 2019 23:34:41 -0400 Received: from [176.228.60.248] (port=1560 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1h8zKo-0001Gs-SJ; Tue, 26 Mar 2019 23:34:40 -0400 Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2019 03:34:00 -0000 Message-Id: <83imw5kn1n.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: Joel Brobecker CC: simark@simark.ca, gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-reply-to: <20190326205716.GC6837@adacore.com> (message from Joel Brobecker on Tue, 26 Mar 2019 13:57:16 -0700) Subject: Re: GDB version as convenience variable References: <83imwwc7pj.fsf@gnu.org> <83k1gts5it.fsf@gnu.org> <83r2aun9mk.fsf@gnu.org> <9d445bd2-28dd-be84-5414-510e061e4db1@simark.ca> <83mulin7ui.fsf@gnu.org> <83k1gmn6b2.fsf@gnu.org> <83imw6n4ny.fsf@gnu.org> <20190326205716.GC6837@adacore.com> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2019-03/txt/msg00633.txt.bz2 > Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2019 13:57:16 -0700 > From: Joel Brobecker > Cc: Eli Zaretskii , gdb-patches@sourceware.org > > This is going to be one more manual test to do after each branch, > and I'm a bit concerned about that. We can start with that, as we want > the test to pass. But I'm wondering if, instead of getting the output > from "show version" to determine the expected values, we could parse > gdb/version.in instead. If needed, we could so the parsing as part of > the build process (ig do it in the makefile, and store the result in > a couple of files). Something like that. Yes, if version.in is updated by some automated method, the same method could update the test suite.