duplicate test message style?

[Michael Elizabeth Chastain]

ac> PASS: gdb.base/sigbpt.exp: nopass SIGSEGV; stepi bp before segv
ac> PASS: gdb.base/sigbpt.exp: nopass SIGSEGV, stepi bp before segv
ac> PASS: gdb.base/sigbpt.exp: nopass SIGSEGV for stepi bp before segv

This rubs me the wrong way because it's a distinction that humans
would not make.

ac> PASS: gdb.base/sigbpt.exp: nopass SIGSEGV; stepi bp before segv
ac> PASS: gdb.base/sigbpt.exp: set breakpoint 0 of 1; stepi bp before segv
ac> PASS: gdb.base/sigbpt.exp: stepi out of handler; stepi bp before segv
ac> PASS: gdb.base/sigbpt.exp: clear breakpoint 0 of 1; stepi bp before segv

This is okay.

ac> PASS: gdb.base/sigbpt.exp: stepi bp before segv; nopass SIGSEGV
ac> PASS: gdb.base/sigbpt.exp: stepi bp before segv; set breakpoint 0 of 1
ac> PASS: gdb.base/sigbpt.exp: stepi bp before segv; stepi out of handler
ac> PASS: gdb.base/sigbpt.exp: stepi bp before segv; clear breakpoint 0 of 1

This is also okay.

So if you have a preference, between the two, pick the one you want.

I have a slight preference for the second form.  Here's why.  If I ever
notice the message, it's usually a context where I need to dig in and
and analyze it.  I think it would be a little easier for me to search
off the "outer; inner" style rather than the "inner; outer style".
But both of them are pretty searchable so either is okay.

Michael C