From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8680 invoked by alias); 15 Feb 2005 04:16:04 -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 8611 invoked from network); 15 Feb 2005 04:15:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lakermmtao07.cox.net) (68.230.240.32) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 15 Feb 2005 04:15:59 -0000 Received: from white ([68.9.64.121]) by lakermmtao07.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.03.04 201-2131-111-106-20040729) with ESMTP id <20050215041558.WJLL20686.lakermmtao07.cox.net@white>; Mon, 14 Feb 2005 23:15:58 -0500 Received: from bob by white with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1D0u80-0000wP-00; Mon, 14 Feb 2005 23:16:00 -0500 Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 15:07:00 -0000 From: Bob Rossi To: Andrew Cagney , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: MI testsuite improvements Message-ID: <20050215041600.GA3582@white> Mail-Followup-To: Andrew Cagney , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <20050210135229.GB28065@white> <420B8026.2060006@gnu.org> <20050210160954.GA28209@white> <420B9DEC.3060501@gnu.org> <20050210195749.GA28864@white> <420BC978.1030904@gnu.org> <20050211172931.GA30352@white> <420D08DC.3050903@gnu.org> <20050212021913.GA30900@white> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050212021913.GA30900@white> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i X-SW-Source: 2005-02/txt/msg00141.txt.bz2 On Fri, Feb 11, 2005 at 09:19:13PM -0500, Bob Rossi wrote: > On Fri, Feb 11, 2005 at 02:34:52PM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote: > > Bob Rossi wrote: > > >On Thu, Feb 10, 2005 at 03:52:08PM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote: > > > > > >>>OO, I see, are you saying the mi-* tests will become the new ones, and > > >>>the mi2-* are frozen for the mi2-* development cycle? > > >>> > > >>>In order to do this for only the new tests, I'll have to add a new > > >>>parameter to mi_gdb_start to tell it to either open or not open a pty > > >>>for the inferior. Hope this will be OK. > > >> > > >>M'kay. > > > > I've thought hard about this one. I'm ok with the theory in that we > > should have a test of GDB against a "pipe" (i.e., something that doesn't > > echo). I've reservations about applying it across all tests though. > > > > At present you can look at the log and see the exact interaction as > > you'll get when you run that same GDB in a normal terminal. This change > > alters that. > > > > Can you post an example log so that we can see what it looks like. > > Andrew, sorry if you recieved the last Email from me directly. > Sourceware bounced the Email from the GDB list, because it was to large. > For your info, I attached mi-console.exp and mi-syn-frame.exp log > information, because those 2 have the most inferior I/O. > > I've attached new_gdb.log and original_gdb.log. I actually modified > new_gdb.log so that the PATH is the same in both. Let me know if this > isn't OK. It does make looking at the diff much simpler. > > It's obviously your call on if it's OK to use the new PTY on all the > tests. I kind of prefer it, since at this point, there is no way to > write a reliable front end to GDB without using the PTY. For example, > there's no way to reliably parse the output of GDB when the inferior is > mixing it's output in the same stream. Especially if you are debugging > your own front end to GDB! > > Also, there's several other advanatage which I mentioned, including, > - anchoring all the output of the GDB > - anchoring all the output of the Inferior > - parsing the output of GDB to get a syntax check > - later advantages of parsing the output of GDB to use semantically > > Let me know what you think. If you want the dbg.log files, I can provide > them. Any headway on this? Need some more info? Thanks, Bob Rossi