Re: [RFA/testsuite] test hand function call in commands list

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com>]

On Mon, Apr 14, 2003 at 11:40:48AM -0400, Joel Brobecker wrote:
> The attached patch to break.exp was written by Klee Dienes and
> submitted in the following message:
> 
>         http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2002-10/msg00586.html
> 
> The purpose of the test is to make sure that a problem occuring with
> function calls inside a commands list does not cause a SIGSEGV.
> 
> 2003-04-14  J. Brobecker  <brobecker@gnat.com>
> 
>         From Klee Dienne <kdienes@apple.com>
>         * gdb.base/break.exp: Add multiple calls to the inferior in
>         the user-commands for 'break 79'. Add a check for the calls
>         to the inferior in the check for the result. Add new test, to
>         check that user-defined breakpoint commands are called for functions
>         called by the user (currently fails).
> 
> When I ran the test, I was very surprised to see one FAIL. I am
> describing below the symptoms (no time to investigate this today), but I
> think the test is worthwhile adding anyway. Ok to apply?

This patch got sidetracked in a discussion of the one FAIL.  Since
it seems that the "failure" isn't something broken in GDB, but rather a
behavioral decision, I'd rather not add that part of the test.

I was going to separate out and apply the remainder of the patch, but
it's not acceptable - it tries to match inferior output directly, which
will fail for remote testing.  If someone wants to rewrite this test to
call inferior functions that set variables, and then print the
variables to verify that the functions were called, that'd be great. 

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer