From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-21464-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 20077 invoked by alias); 5 Jan 2003 15:42:36 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sources.redhat.com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com
Received: (qmail 20069 invoked from network); 5 Jan 2003 15:42:35 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO crack.them.org) (65.125.64.184)
  by 209.249.29.67 with SMTP; 5 Jan 2003 15:42:35 -0000
Received: from nevyn.them.org ([66.93.61.169] ident=mail)
	by crack.them.org with asmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian))
	id 18VEnZ-0001uJ-00; Sun, 05 Jan 2003 11:42:57 -0600
Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian))
	id 18VCv4-0000Mo-00; Sun, 05 Jan 2003 10:42:34 -0500
Date: Sun, 05 Jan 2003 15:42:00 -0000
From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com>
To: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@redhat.com>
Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com,
	Michael Elizabeth Chastain <mec@shout.net>
Subject: Re: RFC: gdb_test_multiple
Message-ID: <20030105154234.GA1348@nevyn.them.org>
Mail-Followup-To: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@redhat.com>,
	gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com,
	Michael Elizabeth Chastain <mec@shout.net>
References: <20030104201600.GA26779@nevyn.them.org> <3E18501D.8050601@redhat.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <3E18501D.8050601@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i
X-SW-Source: 2003-01/txt/msg00179.txt.bz2

On Sun, Jan 05, 2003 at 10:32:45AM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> >gdb_test_multiple "break Foo::Bar" "breakpoint on Foo::Bar" {
> >  -re "Breakpoint at .*\[\r\n\]$gdb_prompt $" {
> >    pass "$_gdb_message"
> >  }
> >  -re "Explode!" {
> >    fail "$_gdb_message (gdb/90210)"
> >  }
> >  -re "Bang." {
> >    kfail "gdb/90211" "$_gdb_message"
> >  }
> >}
> 
> Why not just use:
> 
> set msg "breakpoint on Foo::Bar"
> gdb_test_multiple "break Foo::Bar" {
> ... fail "$msg ...
> }
> 
> I don't think the ``$_gdb_message'' is right.  It certainly isn't 
> exactly intuative.

No, it certainly isn't.  The problem is that the other cases internally
need to know the msg; the only way to do it as above would be to
document a _required_ variable named $msg.  This works, of course:

set msg "breakpoint on Foo::Bar"
gdb_test_multiple "break Foo::Bar" "breakpoint on Foo::Bar" {
... fail "$msg ...
}

I want to think about this a little more anyway; as Michael mentioned,
I don't think it's recursion safe.  I can't fix this syntax due to TCL
limitations, so it might become:

gdb_test_multiple "break Foo::Bar" "breakpoint on Foo::Bar" \
  "Breakpoint at .*\[\r\n\]$gdb_prompt $" { pass $msg } \
  "Bang." { kfail "gdb/90211" $msg }

Which isn't so bad, after all.  I had some reason not to do it that way
but I can't remember what it was, now.  What do you think of this
change?


-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer