From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7653 invoked by alias); 5 Jan 2003 05:25:26 -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 7646 invoked from network); 5 Jan 2003 05:25:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO duracef.shout.net) (204.253.184.12) by 209.249.29.67 with SMTP; 5 Jan 2003 05:25:25 -0000 Received: (from mec@localhost) by duracef.shout.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h055PCk10590; Sat, 4 Jan 2003 23:25:12 -0600 Date: Sun, 05 Jan 2003 05:25:00 -0000 From: Michael Elizabeth Chastain Message-Id: <200301050525.h055PCk10590@duracef.shout.net> To: drow@mvista.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: RFC: gdb_test_multiple X-SW-Source: 2003-01/txt/msg00169.txt.bz2 Sounds great. I am running a Sunday build+test now, which will finish Sunday evening. Then this will be next on my work list. Among other things, I will test it with both tcl/expect/dejagnu stacks (the stock releases that I use / the sourceware dejagnu package, which has its own version of tcl and expect). > See the _gdb_message bit? That, _gdb_command, and _gdb_result are set > in the caller's scope. Will this work with nested gdb_test_multiple's? People do that occasionally, although personally I eschew the practice. > A friend of mine got so fed up with TCL that he rewrote DejaGNU in > Perl, which he's planning to publish in the next couple of weeks. > I can see why. I would be very interested in that but it's a separate line item. One note about the implementation: could you rename gdb_standard_send to _gdb_standard_send or gdb_internal_standard_send or something else that puts more psychological differnce between the exported functions and the internal functions. Michael C