From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4742 invoked by alias); 1 Aug 2005 13:31:04 -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 4596 invoked by uid 22791); 1 Aug 2005 13:30:59 -0000 Received: from eastrmmtao04.cox.net (HELO eastrmmtao04.cox.net) (68.230.240.35) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.30-dev) with ESMTP; Mon, 01 Aug 2005 13:30:58 +0000 Received: from white ([68.9.64.121]) by eastrmmtao04.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.04.00 201-2131-118-20041027) with ESMTP id <20050801133035.TGYJ20730.eastrmmtao04.cox.net@white>; Mon, 1 Aug 2005 09:30:35 -0400 Received: from bob by white with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1DzaNc-00070Z-00; Mon, 01 Aug 2005 09:30:56 -0400 Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2005 13:31:00 -0000 From: Bob Rossi To: Eli Zaretskii , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: MI testsuite to use PTY for inferior Message-ID: <20050801133056.GB26772@white> Mail-Followup-To: Eli Zaretskii , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <20050730230309.GA22547@white> <20050731012111.GB13808@nevyn.them.org> <20050731131653.GC22547@white> <20050731153051.GA28158@nevyn.them.org> <20050731212021.GA24144@white> <20050801113002.GB24853@white> <20050801130023.GN30901@nevyn.them.org> <20050801131627.GA26772@white> <20050801132351.GO30901@nevyn.them.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050801132351.GO30901@nevyn.them.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i X-SW-Source: 2005-08/txt/msg00019.txt.bz2 On Mon, Aug 01, 2005 at 09:23:51AM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > On Mon, Aug 01, 2005 at 09:16:27AM -0400, Bob Rossi wrote: > > Is there an easy and clean way to solve this problem? Maybe this problem > > is easier to solve than I think it is. Any suggestions? > > No, but the heuristics are easier than you think they are. > > > Honestly, I don't care if someone writes an FE that does this kind of > > processing, the only reason I really care about this topic is because I > > would prefer to use the TTY option in the testsuite to ensure the I/O is > > separated. Doing this though, leaves target's without TTY's > > semi-untested. > > As already written, expect requires a TTY anyway. No TTY, no > testsuite. I aggree with the above. However, my point is that the testsuite will no longer test interleaved output. It would only test GDB under the assumption that the tty command works. Bob Rossi