Re: [PATCH] mi-stack.exp

[Nick Roberts <nickrob@snap.net.nz>]

 > > 	* gdb.mi/mi-stack.exp (test_stack_locals_listing): 
 > > 	Remove test for -stack-select-frame without arguments.
 > > 	(test_stack_frame_listing): 
 > > 	Add test for newly implemented command -stack-info-frame.
 > 
 > OK.  Please wrap it this way:
 > 
 > 	* gdb.mi/mi-stack.exp (test_stack_locals_listing): Remove test for
 > 	-stack-select-frame without arguments.
 > 	(test_stack_frame_listing): Add test for newly implemented command
 > 	-stack-info-frame.

OK. (I find the log message easier to read when it fits on one line)

 > > *** /home/nick/src/gdb/testsuite/gdb.mi/mi-stack.exp.~1.15.~ 2005-05-18
 > > 20:18:15.000000000 +1200 ---
 > > /home/nick/src/gdb/testsuite/gdb.mi/mi-stack.exp 2005-06-19
 > > 18:49:18.000000000 +1200
 > 
 > Could you see about submitting relative diffs?  It doesn't really
 > matter what they're relative _to_ - common is -p0 or -p1 to the top
 > directory whose ChangeLog you're touching.  But this is a bit awkward
 > to apply.

Like below? (This is with vc-diff in Emacs)

 > As an aside, if you don't mind, please check in patches all at once. 
 > When you check in each file separately with its own log message,
 > automated tools can't reconstruct the entire change.

You mean, for example, the log message:

	* mi/mi-cmd-stack.c (mi_cmd_stack_info_frame): New function.

	* mi/mi-cmds.c (mi_cmds): Replace entry for -stack-info-frame.
	Make it use mi_cmd_stack_info_frame

	* mi/mi-cmds.h (mi_cmd_stack_info_frame): New declaration.

should appear in the individual CVS log for each of the files
mi/mi-cmd-stack.c, mi/mi-cmds.c and mi/mi-cmds.h?  I thought that the
ChangeLog was there for that purpose.

Nick


2005-06-20  Nick Roberts  <nickrob@snap.net.nz>

	* gdb.mi/mi-stack.exp (test_stack_locals_listing): Remove test for
        -stack-select-frame without arguments.
	(test_stack_frame_listing): Add test for newly implemented command
        -stack-info-frame.


*** mi-stack.exp	18 May 2005 20:18:15 +1200	1.15
--- mi-stack.exp	19 Jun 2005 18:49:18 +1200	
***************
*** 55,60 ****
--- 55,61 ----
      # -stack-list-frames
      # -stack-list-frames 1 1
      # -stack-list-frames 1 3
+     # -stack-info-frame
  
      mi_gdb_test "231-stack-list-frames" \
  	    "231\\^done,stack=\\\[frame=\{level=\"0\",addr=\"$hex\",func=\"callee4\",file=\".*basics.c\",fullname=\"${fullname_syntax}${srcfile}\",line=\"$line_callee4_body\"\},frame=\{level=\"1\",addr=\"$hex\",func=\"callee3\",.*\},frame=\{level=\"2\",addr=\"$hex\",func=\"callee2\",.*\},frame=\{level=\"3\",addr=\"$hex\",func=\"callee1\",.*\},frame=\{level=\"4\",addr=\"$hex\",func=\"main\",.*\}\\\]" \
***************
*** 69,74 ****
--- 70,79 ----
      mi_gdb_test "234-stack-list-frames 1" \
  	    "234\\^error,msg=\"mi_cmd_stack_list_frames: Usage.*FRAME_LOW FRAME_HIGH.*\"" \
  	    "stack frame listing wrong"
+ 
+     mi_gdb_test "235-stack-info-frame" \
+             "235\\^done,frame=\{level=\"0\",addr=\"$hex\",func=\"callee4\",file=\".*basics.c\",fullname=\"${fullname_syntax}${srcfile}\",line=\"$line_callee4_body\"\}" \
+ 	       "selected frame listing"
  }
  
  proc test_stack_args_listing {} {
***************
*** 187,202 ****
  	    "232\\^done,locals=\\\[\\\]" \
                  "stack locals listing for new frame"
  
- # this should be a no-op
- 
-     mi_gdb_test "232-stack-select-frame" \
- 	    "232\\^done" \
-                 "stack select same frame"
- 
      mi_gdb_test "232-stack-list-locals 1" \
  	    "232\\^done,locals=\\\[\\\]" \
                  "stack locals for same frame (level 1)"
- 
  }
  
  mi_runto callee4