RE: Mingw gdb validation

["Pierre Muller" <muller@ics.u-strasbg.fr>]

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org [mailto:gdb-patches-
> owner@sourceware.org] De la part de Denis PILAT
> Envoyé : Wednesday, October 22, 2008 3:04 PM
> À : Pierre Muller
> Cc : 'gdb-patches'
> Objet : Re: Mingw gdb validation
> 
> 
> 
> Pierre Muller wrote:
> >   I thought about this a while ago also,
> > and I was wondering if the best solution would not be to
> > have a global nl variable defined in gdb.exp
> > that would depend on the target you are testing.
> >   I also thought at that time that we should
> > define two global variables: nl and nls.
> > "nl" as being something that is a single newline
> > defined generally as "\[\r\n\]" but probably as "\[\r\n\]\n?" for
> mingw32
> > and
> > "nls" if more than one newline is allowed and should generally be
> simply
> > "\[\r\n\]*"
> >
> If it's more than one we should use "\[\r\n\]+".

  I agree 
grep -o '\\\[\\r\\n\\\]+' | wc -l
gives me 654 matching's for "\[\r\n\]+" pattern
nevertheless,
grep -o '\\\[\\r\\n\\\]\*' | wc -l
also finds 47 matchs for "\[\r\n\]*" pattern.
Finally 
grep -o '\\\[\\r\\n\\\]\*' | wc -l
gives me 1048 matching's...
Lengthy work indeed, but rather straightforward
if we can write a bullet-proof sed substitution rule...


So maybe we would really need three variants:
one for "\[\r\n\]+"
one for "\[\r\n\]*"
and a third one for all other "\[\r\n\]" appearances...

 By the way, there is also one "\[\n\r\]" occurrence:
in gdb.stabs/exclfwd.exp: set eol "\[ \t\]*\[\n\r\]+"

which, despite being semantically equal to the usual "\[\r\n\]"
pattern used, could be forgotten in the change...

  Maybe we can create a group even for the
special mingw case that would allow the + and *
modifiers in the regular expressions to work as expected...
  But the trickiness on regular expression inside
expect (or is it tcl per-se?) 

> >   Nevertheless, changing all tests to use nl and nls
> > is probably not an easy task...
> >
> That's just a long task, but I think it's easier than understanding why
> some tests require end-of-line testing, and some tests do not. See my
> previous mail about gdb.cp/userdef.exp.
  I completely agree with you here,
  I would not like to try to understand for each individual 
use of the "\[\r\n\]" pattern, why it was inserted
and why there is (or is not) a '*' or '+' modifier on it!

> I'm afraid there could be some tests that has been written to match the
> gdb behavior, even if it was not a correct behavior.

  I hope that, if we are able to generate
a loooong single patch containing all those
changes and have no effect on the testsuite results
on a ordinary target, it would be very unlikely that
we break anything on other targets.

  But of course, we need to get feedback from
our global maintainers on that issue.


Pierre Muller
Pascal language support maintainer for GDB