From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 49013 invoked by alias); 23 Mar 2018 10:13:34 -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 48131 invoked by uid 89); 23 Mar 2018 10:13:33 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy= X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx3-rdu2.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.73) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Fri, 23 Mar 2018 10:13:32 +0000 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx03.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D5E6C406E96B; Fri, 23 Mar 2018 10:13:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn04.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.4]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FFAE111DCE5; Fri, 23 Mar 2018 10:13:30 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] gdb: Minor cleanup in some gdb.arch/* tests To: Andrew Burgess , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <4b5623c7-72b0-4640-ce94-35be198b718d@redhat.com> <20180322225911.GA13407@embecosm.com> From: Pedro Alves Message-ID: Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2018 10:13:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20180322225911.GA13407@embecosm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2018-03/txt/msg00441.txt.bz2 On 03/22/2018 10:59 PM, Andrew Burgess wrote: > I've updated inline with your suggestion. I've also converted the > uses of gdb_compile to prepare_for_testing as I believe in these cases > the outcome is the same. I compared the compile commands in the log > file, prepare_for_testing does split out the object file step into a > separate command, but otherwise I think the command are identical. > > Anyway, how's this? Great, OK. Thanks, Pedro Alves