Re: MI testsuite to use PTY for inferior

Bob Rossi
2005-08-01T14:07:17Z

On Mon, Aug 01, 2005 at 10:00:17AM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> [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 :-)

OK, So I'm assuming the wise thing to do would be to go ahead with my
patch and drop the discussion of support on native windows.

I'll provide the already given changes needed, and repost.

Thanks,
Bob Rossi