From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from omta035.useast.a.cloudfilter.net (omta035.useast.a.cloudfilter.net [44.202.169.34]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8987D3850214 for ; Fri, 18 Aug 2023 18:56:19 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 8987D3850214 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=tromey.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=tromey.com Received: from eig-obgw-6010a.ext.cloudfilter.net ([10.0.30.248]) by cmsmtp with ESMTP id WcMCqDcHxDKaKX4dvqYztA; Fri, 18 Aug 2023 18:56:19 +0000 Received: from box5379.bluehost.com ([162.241.216.53]) by cmsmtp with ESMTPS id X4dtqFTwvJJfoX4duq1Frn; Fri, 18 Aug 2023 18:56:18 +0000 X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.4 cv=V4lubMri c=1 sm=1 tr=0 ts=64dfbed2 a=ApxJNpeYhEAb1aAlGBBbmA==:117 a=ApxJNpeYhEAb1aAlGBBbmA==:17 a=OWjo9vPv0XrRhIrVQ50Ab3nP57M=:19 a=dLZJa+xiwSxG16/P+YVxDGlgEgI=:19 a=UttIx32zK-AA:10 a=Qbun_eYptAEA:10 a=CCpqsmhAAAAA:8 a=ohhIxOETggaOWcWiNIgA:9 a=ul9cdbp4aOFLsgKbc677:22 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tromey.com; s=default; h=Content-Type:MIME-Version:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:Date:References :Subject:Cc:To:From:Sender:Reply-To:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID: Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc :Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe: List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=pKE47EO4wRrTJGiUYQbS52C1xkzJmK2/F4NLoX9M/xU=; b=G9VpfGcNU2YrPvoBqBmkI8O+VQ v2hq26OciqR+6I3wRVVM7YtT+IrG2BHLbkvn2k/lGunwmRZ9mbxv7LSLssMcjI8Q65BcAPM/bzloz COChGuihc5IKrig6cecccjcPk; Received: from 75-166-142-177.hlrn.qwest.net ([75.166.142.177]:40384 helo=murgatroyd) by box5379.bluehost.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.2) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.96) (envelope-from ) id 1qX4dt-001Wff-1s; Fri, 18 Aug 2023 12:56:17 -0600 From: Tom Tromey To: Guinevere Larsen via Gdb-patches Cc: Guinevere Larsen Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/4] gdb/testsuite: fix testing gdb.reverse/step-reverse.exp with clang References: <20230814104819.207097-2-blarsen@redhat.com> <20230814104819.207097-5-blarsen@redhat.com> X-Attribution: Tom Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2023 12:56:16 -0600 In-Reply-To: <20230814104819.207097-5-blarsen@redhat.com> (Guinevere Larsen via Gdb-patches's message of "Mon, 14 Aug 2023 12:48:19 +0200") Message-ID: <87ttsww567.fsf@tromey.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - box5379.bluehost.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - sourceware.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - tromey.com X-BWhitelist: no X-Source-IP: 75.166.142.177 X-Source-L: No X-Exim-ID: 1qX4dt-001Wff-1s X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: X-Source-Sender: 75-166-142-177.hlrn.qwest.net (murgatroyd) [75.166.142.177]:40384 X-Source-Auth: tom+tromey.com X-Email-Count: 1 X-Org: HG=bhshared;ORG=bluehost; X-Source-Cap: ZWx5bnJvYmk7ZWx5bnJvYmk7Ym94NTM3OS5ibHVlaG9zdC5jb20= X-Local-Domain: yes X-CMAE-Envelope: MS4xfKDvVvZLVDVjlexjWx/8hcIj+UBvIl4tPyxufm8iINtp9Gyiln4KileTImqnv7RpRTeiCKTpYvgIyYWZLM4kDpkQgGgTiIsChuWydNw3iNF0TA/RR02/ +EBsK13czNqInSbyIkOHqg1p6cU+00ldW5qm2meL0YVsRk/7Qc6xCn+M42awxeb09/kob6lSn2CfRkyZatBrCcpYZeE7oo6AvVc= X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3019.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,JMQ_SPF_NEUTRAL,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: >>>>> "Guinevere" == Guinevere Larsen via Gdb-patches writes: Guinevere> It also adds a new parameter to get_hexadecimal_valueof, so that we can Guinevere> use it without generating new passes, otherwise we'd get multiple Guinevere> duplicate test names. This change shouldn't affect any other test using Guinevere> this proc. I thought there was a different thread about this? To me it seems weirder to have the potential for a fail without a corresponding pass. Though I suppose both situations are lame. Tom