From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3724 invoked by alias); 3 Feb 2003 18:36:02 -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 3715 invoked from network); 3 Feb 2003 18:36:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO crack.them.org) (65.125.64.184) by 172.16.49.205 with SMTP; 3 Feb 2003 18:36:02 -0000 Received: from nevyn.them.org ([66.93.61.169] ident=mail) by crack.them.org with asmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 18fnKr-0006IB-00 for ; Mon, 03 Feb 2003 14:36:57 -0600 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 18flSX-00079i-00 for ; Mon, 03 Feb 2003 13:36:45 -0500 Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2003 18:36:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [patch] gdb.c++/pr-1023.exp: new test script Message-ID: <20030203183645.GB27429@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <200302031805.h13I5qA28182@duracef.shout.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200302031805.h13I5qA28182@duracef.shout.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2003-02/txt/msg00074.txt.bz2 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