From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16527 invoked by alias); 1 Aug 2005 14:00:22 -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 16509 invoked by uid 22791); 1 Aug 2005 14:00:19 -0000 Received: from nevyn.them.org (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.30-dev) with ESMTP; Mon, 01 Aug 2005 14:00:18 +0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.52) id 1Dzaq1-0001af-F9 for gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com; Mon, 01 Aug 2005 10:00:17 -0400 Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2005 14:00:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: MI testsuite to use PTY for inferior Message-ID: <20050801140017.GA6073@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <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> <20050801133056.GB26772@white> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050801133056.GB26772@white> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.8i X-SW-Source: 2005-08/txt/msg00020.txt.bz2 [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