Re: [PATCH][gdb/testsuite] Fix FAILs in gdb.mi/mi-breakpoint-changed.exp

[Tom de Vries via Gdb-patches <gdb-patches@sourceware.org>]

On 10/22/21 2:55 PM, Simon Marchi wrote:
> 
> 
> On 2021-10-05 10:46, Tom de Vries via Gdb-patches wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Since commit e36788d1354 "[gdb/testsuite] Fix handling of nr_args < 3 in
>> mi_gdb_test" we run into:
>> ...
>> PASS: gdb.mi/mi-breakpoint-changed.exp: test_auto_disable: mi runto main
>> Expecting: ^(-break-insert -f pendfunc1[^M
>> ]+)?((&.*)*.*~"Breakpoint 2 at.*\\n".*=breakpoint-created,\
>>   bkpt=\{number="2",type="breakpoint".*\}.*\n\^done[^M
>> ]+[(]gdb[)] ^M
>> [ ]*)
>> -break-insert -f pendfunc1^M
>> ^done,bkpt={number="2",type="breakpoint",disp="keep",enabled="y",\
>>   addr="0x00007ffff7bd559e",func="pendfunc1",\
>>   file="gdb/testsuite/gdb.mi/pendshr1.c",\
>>   fullname="gdb/testsuite/gdb.mi/pendshr1.c",line="21",thread-groups=["i1"],\
>>   times="0",original-location="pendfunc1"}^M
>> (gdb) ^M
>> FAIL: gdb.mi/mi-breakpoint-changed.exp: test_auto_disable: \
>>   -break-insert -f pendfunc1 (unexpected output)
>> ...
>>
>> The regexp expects a breakpoint-created event, but that's actually suppressed
>> by the command:
>> ...
>> DEF_MI_CMD_MI_1 ("break-insert", mi_cmd_break_insert,
>>                    &mi_suppress_notification.breakpoint),
>> ...
>>
>> Fix this by updating the regexp.
>>
>> Likewise for the following:
>> ...
>> PASS: gdb.mi/mi-breakpoint-changed.exp: test_auto_disable: \
>>   -break-insert -f pendfunc1
>> Expecting: ^(-break-enable count 1 2[^M
>> ]+)?(=breakpoint-modified,\
>>   bkpt=\{number="2",type="breakpoint",disp="dis",enabled="y".*\}.*\n\^done[^M
>> ]+[(]gdb[)] ^M
>> [ ]*)
>> -break-enable count 1 2^M
>> ^done^M
>> (gdb) ^M
>> FAIL: gdb.mi/mi-breakpoint-changed.exp: test_auto_disable: \
>>   -break-enable count 1 2 (unexpected out\
>> put)
>> ...
>>
>> Tested on x86_64-linux.
>>
>> Any comments?
> 
> So, the test used to wrongfully pass because mi_gdb_test was broken, and
> fixing mi_gdb_test exposed that the test is wrong?

Yes, that's my understanding.

> If so, this looks
> good to me.

Thanks for the review, committed.
- Tom