Re: MI testsuite to use PTY for inferior

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>]

[Sorry for the duplicate; sourceware hiccupped.]

On Mon, Aug 01, 2005 at 09:30:56AM -0400, Bob Rossi wrote:
> 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.

These are tests of a frontend's ability to handle unexpected output,
not tests of GDB itself; I don't see GDB needing much in the way of
tests for them.  I pick my things to worry about :-)

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery, LLC