Re: RFA: patch to fix gdb/1680

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>]

On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 04:25:24PM -0400, Michael Chastain wrote:
> drow> I prefer to solve the mystery instead.
> 
> We can do both.  I don't want to have 16 ERROR's in my face while
> we are figuring this out.
> 
> drow> Presumably this version of TCL does not put special meaning on
> drow> {string}, but does on {NUMBER}, as has become fashionable for regex
> drow> engines.
> 
> Aw, foo!  That's what's different about gdb.cp/*.exp.  All the examples
> in gdb.cp/*.exp are like:
> 
>   { x = 100, y = 101 }
> 
> Both the sourceware version of TCL (which is based on 8.4.1) and
> the version I use of TCL (8.4.6) have code for {NUMBER} and
> {NUMBER, NUMBER} modifiers.
> 
> I suspect there's some difference happening at the expect level
> (5.26 versus 5.41).
> 
> Time to dive into the TCL source and throw in some fprintf's and stuff.

The correct change is to use { \{ } } or " \\{ } "; it is harmless but
still incorrect where we use "\{ }" or "{ }" in the C++ testsuite.

I imagine it depends on the guts of the regex matcher whether " { 2, 0,
4 }" throws an error.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz