From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10221 invoked by alias); 4 Aug 2005 04:11:27 -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 10205 invoked by uid 22791); 4 Aug 2005 04:11:22 -0000 Received: from nevyn.them.org (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.30-dev) with ESMTP; Thu, 04 Aug 2005 04:11:22 +0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.52) id 1E0X4j-0007kV-71 for gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com; Thu, 04 Aug 2005 00:11:21 -0400 Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2005 04:11:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Fully anchor mi_gdb_test expected results. Message-ID: <20050804041121.GB29482@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <20050804025045.GC32108@white> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050804025045.GC32108@white> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.8i X-SW-Source: 2005-08/txt/msg00063.txt.bz2 On Wed, Aug 03, 2005 at 10:50:45PM -0400, Bob Rossi wrote: > Hi, > > This testsuite change simply does several simple things. First, when > creating a new pty for the inferior, this change turn's terminal > echo'ing off. This allows the expected results back from GDB/MI to not > have to have the command sent to GDB in it. The surprising thing with > this change is that even when GDB shares the terminal's PTY with the > inferior, not putting the echo'd data in the expected command still > works. > > The only other notable change here is this, > > - -re "\[\r\n\]*($pattern)\[\r\n\]+$mi_gdb_prompt\[ \]*$" { > + -re "^(.*$pattern\[\r\n\]+$mi_gdb_prompt\[ \]*)$" { > > that is the change that fully anchor's the output from GDB. The reason > this is necessary is because with this change, I can grab the full > response from GDB for a command. With this response I can do syntax > checking with the parser that I wrote. > > What does everyone think? We're not using readline in this mode; we shouldn't have particularly funny wrapping issues on the terminal, should we? Can we match the echoing instead of having to mess with stty? Also, formatting on your comments again, please. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery, LLC