Re: PATCH: tests for MI commands

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>]

On Wed, Jul 27, 2005 at 11:32:49AM +1200, Nick Roberts wrote:
>  > You had a bunch of changes that only were needed because you added
>  > initializations between weird->func_ptr = nothing and a0 = '0'; why not
>  > put them above it, with the others?  There might be some problem with
>  > that I haven't seen...
> 
> The test c_variable-5.8 uses "-var-update *" so I have to change the values of
> the added array elements after this test to get a fresh changelist.  The
> testfile currently stops at "weird->func_ptr = nothing" so it seemed
> convenient to add these tests after it.  I'm not sure that it would be
> simpler, but I can put them above if you prefer.

Nah, the way you have it is fine, since there's a convincing reason.

>  > > ! # Step over "weird->func_ptr = nothing;"
>  > > ! set line_dct_a0_0 [gdb_get_line_number "a0 = '0';"]
>  > >   mi_step_to do_children_tests {} {.*var-cmd.c} \
>  > > !     $line_dct_a0_0 "step \$line_dct_a0_0"
>  > 
>  > > --- 833,842 ----
>  > 
>  > > ! # Step over weird->func_ptr = nothing;
>  > >   mi_step_to do_children_tests {} {.*var-cmd.c} \
>  > > !     [expr $line_dct_nothing + 1] "step \$line_dct_nothing + 1"
>  > 
>  > Please don't do math on line numbers; gdb_get_line_number helps make
>  > test cases more robust against changes in the test source.
> 
> I was trying to copy existing practice.  The testfile seems to use
> gdb_get_line_number to get to test blocks and step from there e.g:
> 
> # Step over "struct_declarations.integer = 123;"
> mi_step_to do_children_tests {} {.*var-cmd.c} \
>     [expr $line_dct_123 + 1] "step \$line_dct_123 + 1"
> 
> The lines:
> 
> set line_dct_a0_0 [gdb_get_line_number "a0 = '0';"]
> mi_step_to  do_children_tests {} {.*var-cmd.c} \
>     $line_dct_a0_0 "step \$line_dct_a0_0"
> 
> are still present but occur later in the file by the comment:
> 
> # Step over struct_declarations.long_array[11] = 5678;
> 
> Is this acceptable or do you want me to use gdb_get_line_number for each
> test?

It's OK.  With the spacing/quoting fixes, go ahead and check it in.

In general this is horrid practice, but you aren't really introducing
new uses.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery, LLC