From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-37259-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 9491 invoked by alias); 3 Dec 2004 22:37:20 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sources.redhat.com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com
Received: (qmail 9414 invoked from network); 3 Dec 2004 22:37:14 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17)
  by sourceware.org with SMTP; 3 Dec 2004 22:37:14 -0000
Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.34 #1 (Debian))
	id 1CaM37-00046I-0f; Fri, 03 Dec 2004 17:37:13 -0500
Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2004 22:52:00 -0000
From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
To: Andrew Cagney <cagney@gnu.org>
Cc: Randolph Chung <randolph@tausq.org>, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: [patch/RFA] multiarch INSTRUCTION_NULLIFIED
Message-ID: <20041203223712.GB15548@nevyn.them.org>
Mail-Followup-To: Andrew Cagney <cagney@gnu.org>,
	Randolph Chung <randolph@tausq.org>, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
References: <20041130164401.GV6359@tausq.org> <41ACA6BE.5080603@gnu.org> <20041130173841.GW6359@tausq.org> <41AE3759.3030503@gnu.org> <20041201223243.GK6359@tausq.org> <41AE5434.9050901@gnu.org> <20041202052417.GM6359@tausq.org> <41B0ABC7.4020806@gnu.org> <20041203201903.GI6359@tausq.org> <41B0D61E.8090907@gnu.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <41B0D61E.8090907@gnu.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1+cvs20040105i
X-SW-Source: 2004-12/txt/msg00094.txt.bz2

On Fri, Dec 03, 2004 at 04:09:50PM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> Randolph Chung wrote:
> 
> Just some nits, fix that, and assuming daniel doesn't notice anything 
> (for a day or til monday?), commit it.
> 
> >+gdb_breakpoint foo
> >+gdb_test "run" ".*Breakpoint 1, .* in foo.*" "Breakpoint at foo"
> 
> The leading .* in the pattern you've picked up from the existing code 
> isn't actually needed (well at least I'm 99% certain of this as I've 
> been stripping them out my self and it makes things more efficient) (the 
> trailing .*s are needed :-):

That's right.  gdb_test_multiple does:
    return [gdb_test_multiple $command $message {
        -re "\[\r\n\]*($pattern)\[\r\n\]+$gdb_prompt $" {

Hmm, that initial bit is completely pointless...

> >+  }
> >+  -re ".*in bar.*$gdb_prompt $" {
> >+    fail "stepped into bar"
> 
> The pass / fail messages should all be identical (except perhaps for a 
> fail where a trailing comment in paren can be added).  So:
> 
> 	fail "$test (stepped into bar)"
> 
> >+  }
> >+  -re ".*in main.*$gdb_prompt $" {
> >+    pass "stepped into main"
> 
> and just:
> 
> 	pass "$test"
> 
> check for the same problem elsewhere.
> 
> >+  gdb_test_multiple "print $sym" "Get address of $sym" {
> >+    -re ".*($hex) <$sym>.*$gdb_prompt $" {
> >+      set addr $expect_out(1,string)
> >+      pass "got address of $sym = $addr"
> >+    }
> >+  }
> 
> Remove the address from the test result (I'm always being slapped for 
> doing that one ;-).  It can make the comparison of subsequent runs, or 
> runs on different systems, harder.

[And make the different test name strings match, as earlier.]

These were the only problems I saw, too.  Fix them and it's OK with me.

> I'd kfail this.  Not supporting gcore is a bug.

Or just fail it for now.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz