From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10301 invoked by alias); 31 Jul 2005 23:32:14 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 10085 invoked by uid 22791); 31 Jul 2005 23:32:09 -0000 Received: from viper.snap.net.nz (HELO viper.snap.net.nz) (202.37.101.8) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.30-dev) with ESMTP; Sun, 31 Jul 2005 23:32:09 +0000 Received: from farnswood.snap.net.nz (p200-tnt1.snap.net.nz [202.124.110.200]) by viper.snap.net.nz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31CF45F5EC6; Mon, 1 Aug 2005 11:32:05 +1200 (NZST) Received: by farnswood.snap.net.nz (Postfix, from userid 501) id A1E9E62A9A; Mon, 1 Aug 2005 00:25:04 +0100 (BST) From: Nick Roberts MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <17133.24015.980223.560772@farnswood.snap.net.nz> Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2005 23:32:00 -0000 To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: Bob Rossi , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: MI testsuite to use PTY for inferior In-Reply-To: <20050731213747.GA12024@nevyn.them.org> References: <17131.5769.342629.658975@farnswood.snap.net.nz> <20050730173855.GA21401@white> <17131.64575.780190.163527@farnswood.snap.net.nz> <20050730230309.GA22547@white> <20050731012111.GB13808@nevyn.them.org> <20050731131653.GC22547@white> <17133.17501.192145.90128@farnswood.snap.net.nz> <20050731213747.GA12024@nevyn.them.org> X-SW-Source: 2005-07/txt/msg00246.txt.bz2 > > I think you should at least test for ptys first, so that the old tests are > > run if/when they are not available. > > Won't do any good - expect relies on PTYs. If the system the tests are > run on does not have PTYs, it won't have the testsuite either. I see. > > More generally I think its wrong to force > > the frontend to separate the output. Currently, I get reasonable behaviour > > with Emacs without doing this and would always include interleaved output as a > > user option. > > Would it hurt you to stitch them back together, though? The fewer > interfaces we have to support, the better... I guess it would even be safer in cases where the inferior has similar output e.g debugging GDB itself. However, I thought there were systems where ptys weren't available (w32?). Even if you can't run the testsuite, you might still want to run GDB there (actually, I thought FSF GDB *is* being ported to w32 - how is it tested?). Nick