From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7309 invoked by alias); 6 Jun 2007 23:44:07 -0000 Received: (qmail 7300 invoked by uid 22791); 6 Jun 2007 23:44:07 -0000 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DK_POLICY_SIGNSOME X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail128.messagelabs.com (HELO mail128.messagelabs.com) (216.82.250.131) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with SMTP; Wed, 06 Jun 2007 23:44:05 +0000 X-VirusChecked: Checked X-Env-Sender: qbarnes@urbana.css.mot.com X-Msg-Ref: server-4.tower-128.messagelabs.com!1181173443!19825343!1 X-StarScan-Version: 5.5.12.11; banners=-,-,- X-Originating-IP: [129.188.136.8] Received: (qmail 2368 invoked from network); 6 Jun 2007 23:44:03 -0000 Received: from motgate8.mot.com (HELO motgate8.mot.com) (129.188.136.8) by server-4.tower-128.messagelabs.com with SMTP; 6 Jun 2007 23:44:03 -0000 Received: from il06exr03.mot.com (il06exr03.mot.com [129.188.137.133]) by motgate8.mot.com (8.12.11/Motorola) with ESMTP id l56Nhwnx017199 for ; Wed, 6 Jun 2007 16:44:02 -0700 (MST) Received: from il06vts04.mot.com (il06vts04.mot.com [129.188.137.144]) by il06exr03.mot.com (8.13.1/Vontu) with SMTP id l56NhwBe024294 for ; Wed, 6 Jun 2007 18:43:58 -0500 (CDT) Received: from udc.urbana.css.mot.com (udc.urbana.css.mot.com [10.12.0.51]) by il06exr03.mot.com (8.13.1/8.13.0) with ESMTP id l56NhvpS024285 for ; Wed, 6 Jun 2007 18:43:58 -0500 (CDT) Received: from nova.urbana.css.mot.com (nova.urbana.css.mot.com [192.88.153.60]) by udc.urbana.css.mot.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id l56NhvWq012503; Wed, 6 Jun 2007 18:43:57 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from qbarnes@localhost) by nova.urbana.css.mot.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.7/Submit) id l56NhvsM024904; Wed, 6 Jun 2007 18:43:57 -0500 (CDT) Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2007 23:44:00 -0000 From: Quentin Barnes To: Roland McGrath Cc: systemtap@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: ARM port of testsuite and general testsuite fixes Message-ID: <20070606234357.GH20115@urbana.css.mot.com> References: <46672C6C.6070007@redhat.com> <20070606231008.91DD34D0592@magilla.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070606231008.91DD34D0592@magilla.localdomain> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i X-POPI: This message is Motorola General Business Information (MGBI). X-Organization: Motorola Cellular Subscriber Group, Urbana Design Center X-Phone: (217) 384-8726 X-Vontu: Pass X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact systemtap-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: systemtap-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2007-q2/txt/msg00500.txt.bz2 >The difference in tcl between {foo bar} and {foo\ bar} is whether as a list >it's considered two elements or one, so that might be the issue. I don't know the nuances of the TCL language. In the grammar, do brackets always define a list, or only when the preceding keyword is syntactically expecting a list to follow? If whitespace is being parsed as a list separator, I would expect these two statements to be equivalent: -re {^hi there} ... and: -re {^hi there} ... But they are not. I couldn't come up with a test case where escaping the space made any actual difference. (Just conceptual difference?) Is there a subtle case where the distinction matters? Quentin