From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 99663 invoked by alias); 23 Oct 2018 21:05:54 -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 99637 invoked by uid 89); 23 Oct 2018 21:05:53 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=life, HContent-Transfer-Encoding:8bit X-HELO: mx1.suse.de Received: from mx2.suse.de (HELO mx1.suse.de) (195.135.220.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Tue, 23 Oct 2018 21:05:52 +0000 Received: from relay1.suse.de (unknown [195.135.220.254]) by mx1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C3D2AB4D; Tue, 23 Oct 2018 21:05:50 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [PATCH][gdb/testsuite] Rewrite catch-follow-exec.exp To: Simon Marchi , Gary Benson Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Pedro Alves References: <20181005101122.GA23867@delia> <20181009135155.GB12668@blade.nx> <8f8ffb94-5a0c-8b2b-d541-eaacd7d1f42c@suse.de> <20181010092735.GA29557@blade.nx> <20181010134423.GA23926@blade.nx> <20181011074744.GA7677@delia> <20181011083318.GA13751@blade.nx> <06b38d2e3f0a9394280553e70b9dfaf8@polymtl.ca> <480ea2be-eac0-8d19-cfe7-93c56b33a7ac@suse.de> From: Tom de Vries Message-ID: <9d0dc535-b053-5063-eb0c-d7bf3e80fe49@suse.de> Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2018 21:05:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.2.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2018-10/txt/msg00525.txt.bz2 On 10/23/18 11:04 PM, Simon Marchi wrote: > On 2018-10-15 3:54 p.m., Tom de Vries wrote: >>> Just wondering.  Would it make life easier if we fixed PR 23368, which >>> is the reason we have to do the test in an unnatural way? >> >> Yes. > > Hi Tom, > > PR 23368 should be fixed now. Do you plan on updating catch-follow-exec.exp > to be written in a more standard way? Sure, will do. Thanks, - Tom