From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10365 invoked by alias); 7 Jan 2003 03:25:39 -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 10355 invoked from network); 7 Jan 2003 03:25:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO crack.them.org) (65.125.64.184) by 209.249.29.67 with SMTP; 7 Jan 2003 03:25:38 -0000 Received: from nevyn.them.org ([66.93.61.169] ident=mail) by crack.them.org with asmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 18VmFW-00053v-00; Mon, 06 Jan 2003 23:26:03 -0600 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 18VkMs-0001Lf-00; Mon, 06 Jan 2003 22:25:30 -0500 Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2003 03:25:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Andrew Cagney Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, Michael Elizabeth Chastain Subject: Re: RFC: gdb_test_multiple Message-ID: <20030107032528.GA5132@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Andrew Cagney , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, Michael Elizabeth Chastain References: <20030104201600.GA26779@nevyn.them.org> <3E18501D.8050601@redhat.com> <20030105154234.GA1348@nevyn.them.org> <3E19F142.4030203@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3E19F142.4030203@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2003-01/txt/msg00262.txt.bz2 On Mon, Jan 06, 2003 at 04:12:34PM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote: > >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" $msg } > > > >Which isn't so bad, after all. I had some reason not to do it that way > >but I can't remember what it was, now. What do you think of this > >change? > > Which ever. My concern is with `$_gdb_message'. Knowing how to use > that would have required a deep understanding of what the function > gdb_test_multiple{} was doing. The above at least makes immediate sense > to someone with little tcl/tk knowledge (read: average gdb developer :-). OK. I'll have an even easier version of this done tomorrow; it has one truely gruesome TCL hack in it, but that's it. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer