From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24416 invoked by alias); 30 Jul 2005 18:08:26 -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 24406 invoked by uid 22791); 30 Jul 2005 18:08:22 -0000 Received: from nevyn.them.org (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.30-dev) with ESMTP; Sat, 30 Jul 2005 18:08:22 +0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.52) id 1Dyvky-0001jq-CB; Sat, 30 Jul 2005 14:08:20 -0400 Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2005 18:08:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Nick Roberts , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: MI testsuite to use PTY for inferior Message-ID: <20050730180819.GA6597@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Nick Roberts , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <17131.5769.342629.658975@farnswood.snap.net.nz> <20050730173855.GA21401@white> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050730173855.GA21401@white> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.8i X-SW-Source: 2005-07/txt/msg00230.txt.bz2 I haven't had time to look at the whole patch yet; I'll do that later today or tomorrow, I had a couple of comments. But let me respond to a couple of things here first... On Sat, Jul 30, 2005 at 01:38:56PM -0400, Bob Rossi wrote: > > > + > > > + # spawn off the new pty for the inferior process > > > > Open a new pty for the inferior process? (spawn means new process?) > > I used the verb "spawn" because in order to get a new pty you have to > call 'spawn pty'. If it is prefered to say "Create the new pty ...", I > can change that. Either way, formatting - capitals and periods. I would recommend "create the new pty", because you can't spawn off a PTY; it's not something which runs on its own. > > > -# mi_gdb_test COMMAND PATTERN MESSAGE -- send a command to gdb; test the result. > > > +# mi_gdb_test COMMAND PATTERN IPATTERN MESSAGE -- send a command to gdb; test the result. > > > # > > > # COMMAND is the command to execute, send to GDB with send_gdb. If > > > # this is the null string no command is sent. > > > # PATTERN is the pattern to match for a PASS, and must NOT include > > > # the \r\n sequence immediately before the gdb prompt. > > > +# IPATTERN is the pattern to match for the inferior's output. This will not > > > +# produce a PASS if successfull, but will produce a FAIL if unsuccessful. > > > # MESSAGE is an optional message to be printed. If this is > > > # omitted, then the pass/fail messages use the command string as the > > > # message. (If this is the empty string, then sometimes we don't > > > @@ -533,14 +568,20 @@ > > > > With these arguments, you can't discriminate between > > > > mi_gdb_test COMMAND PATTERN MESSAGE > > > > and > > > > mi_gdb_test COMMAND PATTERN IPATTERN > > > > (MESSAGE is optional). > > Yeah, this does look like a problem. Thanks. Is there a good way to work > around this in TCL? Or should I make the IPATTERN parameter necessary? > Force the user to put "" for IPATTERN? > > Or rather, should I make the MESSAGE parameter necessary? I have a feeling > that all of the MI tests use the MESSAGE parameter. If I do that, I can > make the IPATTERN parameter optional, and last. You're adding a new parameter; having it optional is fine, as long as you add it after all existing optional parameters. COMMAND PATTERN IPATTERN MESSAGE is more intuitive, but I think that's less important than correctness, so I would recommend COMMAND PATTERN [MESSAGE [IPATTERN]]. Make sense? > > I know that "Ditto." and "Likewise." are used often in GDB but I prefer: > > > > * gdb.mi/gdb669.exp, gdb.mi/gdb680.exp, gdb.mi/gdb701.exp, > > gdb.mi/gdb792.exp, gdb.mi/mi-break.exp, gdb.mi/mi-disassemble.exp, > > gdb.mi/mi-eval.exp: Tell mi_gdb_start to use a PTY for inferior. > > Update Copyright. > > I will gladly change my ChangeLog sytle if either Daneil or Eli agree > with your assessment. I have currently built up my ChangeLog style as a > repetitive response from Daneil and Eli in order to comply with there > style, in order to get faster patch review time. I don't much care which of these you use. You don't need to mention updating the copyright year in the changelog unless you're doing archaeology, though - if you're just adding the current year, don't bother. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery, LLC