From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4946 invoked by alias); 21 Aug 2008 23:42:29 -0000 Received: (qmail 4936 invoked by uid 22791); 21 Aug 2008 23:42:29 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from igw3.br.ibm.com (HELO igw3.br.ibm.com) (32.104.18.26) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 21 Aug 2008 23:41:28 +0000 Received: from mailhub3.br.ibm.com (unknown [9.18.232.110]) by igw3.br.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D827339009F for ; Thu, 21 Aug 2008 20:21:17 -0300 (BRST) Received: from d24av01.br.ibm.com (d24av01.br.ibm.com [9.18.232.46]) by mailhub3.br.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v8.7) with ESMTP id m7LNfU6L1159252 for ; Thu, 21 Aug 2008 20:41:30 -0300 Received: from d24av01.br.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d24av01.br.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id m7LNfNPG017427 for ; Thu, 21 Aug 2008 20:41:23 -0300 Received: from [9.18.197.238] ([9.18.197.238]) by d24av01.br.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m7LNfMPj017401; Thu, 21 Aug 2008 20:41:22 -0300 Subject: Re: [rfc] add ppc testcase to test fpscr From: Thiago Jung Bauermann To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: gdb-patches ml In-Reply-To: <20080821233115.GA1239@caradoc.them.org> References: <1219360611.8989.6.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20080821233115.GA1239@caradoc.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 23:42:00 -0000 Message-Id: <1219362081.29526.2.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.22.3.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2008-08/txt/msg00574.txt.bz2 On Thu, 2008-08-21 at 19:31 -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > Also, this adds the function gdb_send_cmd to lib/gdb.exp. More than once > > I've wanted to send a commad to GDB and wait to get the prompt back > > (because send_gdb is too fast and can create racy testcases). This > > function scratches that itch. > > Isn't this just the same as gdb_test "command" "" "" ? Tried that, didn't work. Your command would check for: -re "\[\r\n\]*()\[\r\n\]+$gdb_prompt $" Which apparently is not good... I admit I didn't look that much into it. -- []'s Thiago Jung Bauermann IBM Linux Technology Center