)]}'
{
  "commit": "d7440bee9ffa6767e704f226ec28b9aa2fb748d6",
  "tree": "baf6d19a2895221e52062b5d1469918590d75cfe",
  "parents": [
    "8d08cccb0147025f028898542263e3f83259bba9"
  ],
  "author": {
    "name": "Pedro Alves",
    "email": "pedro@palves.net",
    "time": "Tue May 17 10:25:12 2022 +0100"
  },
  "committer": {
    "name": "Pedro Alves",
    "email": "pedro@palves.net",
    "time": "Tue May 17 11:08:22 2022 +0100"
  },
  "message": "gdb.base/skip.exp: Don\u0027t abuse gdb_test\u0027s question support\n\ngdb.base/skip.exp abuses gdb_test\u0027s support for answering a GDB\nquestion to do this:\n\n    # With gcc 9.2.0 we jump once back to main before entering foo here.\n    # If that happens try to step a second time.\n    gdb_test \"step\" \"foo \\\\(\\\\) at.*\" \"step 3\" \\\n\t\"main \\\\(\\\\) at .*\\r\\n$gdb_prompt \" \"step\"\n\nAfter a patch later in this series, gdb_test will FAIL if GDB does NOT\nissue the question, so this test would start failing on older GCCs.\n\nSwitch to using gdb_test_multiple instead.  There are three spots in\nthe file that have the same pattern, and they\u0027re actually in a\nsequence of commands that is repeated those 3 times.  Factor all that\nout to a procedure.\n\nI don\u0027t have gcc 9.2 handy, but I do have gcc 6.5, and that one is\naffected as well, so update the comment.\n\nChange-Id: If0a7e3cdf5191b4eec95ce0c8845c3a4d801c39e\n",
  "tree_diff": [
    {
      "type": "modify",
      "old_id": "7c71bb07a841aea22b03ac789f38cc55216359dc",
      "old_mode": 33188,
      "old_path": "gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/skip.exp",
      "new_id": "e6b660004d94c1c9e626868d966c327e5e6c0cfa",
      "new_mode": 33188,
      "new_path": "gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/skip.exp"
    }
  ]
}