[patch] gdb.c++/pr-1023.exp: new test script

[patch] gdb.c++/pr-1023.exp: new test script

[Michael Elizabeth Chastain]

This is a new C++ test script.  It demonstrates the bug in PR gdb/1023.
This bug is still present in gdb HEAD%20030201, so the test script
has a KFAIL arm in it.

Testing: native i686-pc-linux-gnu, gcc v2 and v3, dwarf-2 and stabs+.
All results are either PASS or KFAIL.  As the PR says, it KFAIL's with
gcc 2.95.3 dwarf-2.

I will wait 24 hours and then commit this.

This is a simple test script, so it will be a good candidate for the
new gdb_test_multiple syntax.  *After* committing this nice working
version, I will be open to gdb_test_multiple experiments.

BTW, I like the work flow that we are evolving here:

  user submits PR
  gdb q.a. person writes test script with KFAIL arms
  gdb engineer fixes bug

Michael C

Index: fnchange.lst
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/config/djgpp/fnchange.lst,v
retrieving revision 1.45
diff -u -r1.45 fnchange.lst
--- fnchange.lst	31 Jan 2003 20:43:54 -0000	1.45
+++ fnchange.lst	3 Feb 2003 17:59:58 -0000
@@ -248,6 +248,8 @@
 @V@/gdb/testsuite/gdb.c++/overload.exp @V@/gdb/testsuite/gdb.cxx/overload.exp
 @V@/gdb/testsuite/gdb.c++/ovldbreak.cc @V@/gdb/testsuite/gdb.cxx/ovldbreak.cc
 @V@/gdb/testsuite/gdb.c++/ovldbreak.exp @V@/gdb/testsuite/gdb.cxx/ovldbreak.exp
+@V@/gdb/testsuite/gdb.c++/pr-1023.cc @V@/gdb/testsuite/gdb.cxx/pr-1023.cc
+@V@/gdb/testsuite/gdb.c++/pr-1023.exp @V@/gdb/testsuite/gdb.cxx/pr-1023.exp
 @V@/gdb/testsuite/gdb.c++/pr-574.cc @V@/gdb/testsuite/gdb.cxx/pr-574.cc
 @V@/gdb/testsuite/gdb.c++/pr-574.exp @V@/gdb/testsuite/gdb.cxx/pr-574.exp
 @V@/gdb/testsuite/gdb.c++/printmethod.cc @V@/gdb/testsuite/gdb.cxx/printmethod.cc

=== gdb/ChangeLog

2003-02-03  Michael Chastain  <mec@shout.net>

	* config/djgpp/fnchange.lst: Add gdb/testsuite/gdb.c++/pr-1023.cc,
	gdb/testsuite/gdb.c++/pr-1023.exp.

=== gdb/testsuite/ChangeLog

2003-02-03  Michael Chastain  <mec@shout.net>

	* gdb.c++/pr-1023.cc: New file.
	* gdb.c++/pr-1023.exp: New file.

=== gdb/testsuite/gdb.c++/pr-1023.cc

class myClass
{
  public:
    myClass() {};
    ~myClass() {};
    void performUnblocking( short int cell_index );
    void performBlocking( int cell_index );
};

void myClass::performUnblocking( short int cell_index ) {}

void myClass::performBlocking( int cell_index ) {}

int main ()
{
  myClass mc;
  mc.performBlocking (0);
  mc.performUnblocking (0);
}

=== gdb/testsuite/gdb.c++/pr-1023.exp

# Copyright 2003 Free Software Foundation, Inc.

# This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
# it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
# the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
# (at your option) any later version.
# 
# This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
# but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
# MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the
# GNU General Public License for more details.
# 
# You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
# along with this program; if not, write to the Free Software
# Foundation, Inc., 59 Temple Place - Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307, USA.  

# Tests for PR gdb/1023.
# 2003-02-03  Michael Chastain <mec@shout.net>

# This file is part of the gdb testsuite.

if $tracelevel then {
        strace $tracelevel
        }

if { [skip_cplus_tests] } { continue }

#
# test running programs
#
set prms_id 0
set bug_id 0

set testfile "pr-1023"
set srcfile ${testfile}.cc
set binfile ${objdir}/${subdir}/${testfile}

if  { [gdb_compile "${srcdir}/${subdir}/${srcfile}" "${binfile}" executable {debug c++}] != "" } {
     gdb_suppress_entire_file "Testcase compile failed, so all tests in this file will automatically fail."
}

if [get_compiler_info ${binfile} "c++"] {
    return -1
}

gdb_exit
gdb_start
gdb_reinitialize_dir $srcdir/$subdir
gdb_load ${binfile}

if ![runto_main] then {
    perror "couldn't run to breakpoint"
    continue
}

setup_kfail "gdb/1023"

send_gdb "break myClass::performBlocking\n"
gdb_expect {
    -re "Breakpoint $decimal at $hex: file .*$srcfile, line 12.*$gdb_prompt $" {
	pass "break myClass::performBlocking"
    }
    -re "the class myClass does not have any method named performBlocking.*$gdb_prompt $" {
	# fails with gcc 2.95.3 -gstabs+, native i686-pc-linux-gnu
	# -- chastain 2003-02-03
	kfail "gdb/1023" "break myClass::performBlocking"
    }
    -re ".*$gdb_prompt $" {
	fail "break myClass::performBlocking"
    }
    timeout {
	fail "break myClass::performBlocking (timeout)"
    }
}

gdb_test \
  "break myClass::performUnblocking" \
  "Breakpoint $decimal at $hex: file .*$srcfile, line 10.*"

gdb_exit
return 0

Re: [patch] gdb.c++/pr-1023.exp: new test script

[Daniel Jacobowitz]

On Mon, Feb 03, 2003 at 12:05:52PM -0600, Michael Elizabeth Chastain wrote:
> This is a new C++ test script.  It demonstrates the bug in PR gdb/1023.
> This bug is still present in gdb HEAD%20030201, so the test script
> has a KFAIL arm in it.
> 
> Testing: native i686-pc-linux-gnu, gcc v2 and v3, dwarf-2 and stabs+.
> All results are either PASS or KFAIL.  As the PR says, it KFAIL's with
> gcc 2.95.3 dwarf-2.
> 
> I will wait 24 hours and then commit this.
> 
> This is a simple test script, so it will be a good candidate for the
> new gdb_test_multiple syntax.  *After* committing this nice working
> version, I will be open to gdb_test_multiple experiments.

Sounds good.  By the way:

> setup_kfail "gdb/1023"
> 
> send_gdb "break myClass::performBlocking\n"
> gdb_expect {
>     -re "Breakpoint $decimal at $hex: file .*$srcfile, line 12.*$gdb_prompt $" {
> 	pass "break myClass::performBlocking"
>     }
>     -re "the class myClass does not have any method named performBlocking.*$gdb_prompt $" {
> 	# fails with gcc 2.95.3 -gstabs+, native i686-pc-linux-gnu
> 	# -- chastain 2003-02-03
> 	kfail "gdb/1023" "break myClass::performBlocking"
>     }

You should be using either setup_kfail or an explicit kfail, but not
both.  I think you meant the latter in this case.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer

Re: [patch] gdb.c++/pr-1023.exp: new test script

[Jim Blandy]

Michael Elizabeth Chastain <mec@shout.net> writes:
> BTW, I have had bad experiences when I do a commit that encompasses
> more than the current directory.  That's why I do one commit per
> directory.  Do other people have this problem, or do I need to hit
> the CVS info page again?

I do it all the time.  What was the problem?

Re: [patch] gdb.c++/pr-1023.exp: new test script

[Michael Elizabeth Chastain]

Committed.

BTW, I have had bad experiences when I do a commit that encompasses
more than the current directory.  That's why I do one commit per
directory.  Do other people have this problem, or do I need to hit
the CVS info page again?

Michael C

  === gdb/ChangeLog

  2003-02-03  Michael Chastain  <mec@shout.net>

	  * config/djgpp/fnchange.lst: Add gdb/testsuite/gdb.c++/pr-1023.cc,
	  gdb/testsuite/gdb.c++/pr-1023.exp.

  === gdb/testsuite/ChangeLog

  2003-02-03  Michael Chastain  <mec@shout.net>

	  * gdb.c++/pr-1023.cc: New file.
	  * gdb.c++/pr-1023.exp: New file.

Re: [patch] gdb.c++/pr-1023.exp: new test script

[Michael Elizabeth Chastain]

drow> You should be using either setup_kfail or an explicit kfail, but not
drow> both.  I think you meant the latter in this case.

Nice eyes!  You are right.

Michael C