From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7734 invoked by alias); 5 Jan 2003 16:54:11 -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 7607 invoked from network); 5 Jan 2003 16:54:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO duracef.shout.net) (204.253.184.12) by 209.249.29.67 with SMTP; 5 Jan 2003 16:54:10 -0000 Received: (from mec@localhost) by duracef.shout.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h05Grvd19105; Sun, 5 Jan 2003 10:53:57 -0600 Date: Sun, 05 Jan 2003 16:54:00 -0000 From: Michael Elizabeth Chastain Message-Id: <200301051653.h05Grvd19105@duracef.shout.net> To: drow@mvista.com Subject: Re: RFC: gdb_test_multiple Cc: ac131313@redhat.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com X-SW-Source: 2003-01/txt/msg00182.txt.bz2 Hi Daniel, > This isn't a style thing, though. Let me point out the actual > syntactic difference between the two above: the strings are > expanded/substituted at the time of the call to gdb_test_multiple > instead of at the time of the actual expect {}, down the call chain. I don't understand. Are you saying that: set msg "breakpoint on Foo::Bar" gdb_test_multiple "break Foo::Bar" $msg { -re "foo" { ... fail $msg ... } } requires something gross in gdb_test_multiple in order to work? I guess my question is: when does the "$msg" in "fail $msg" get expanded. If the caller expands it before calling gdb_test_multiple then I don't see the problem. If the caller passes "{ ... fail $msg ... }" without expanding $msg then I do see the problem. Michael C