From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26186 invoked by alias); 18 Sep 2005 02:10:16 -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 24185 invoked by uid 22791); 18 Sep 2005 02:09:11 -0000 Received: from centrmmtao06vip.cox.net (HELO centrmmtao06.cox.net) (68.1.16.144) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.30-dev) with ESMTP; Sun, 18 Sep 2005 02:09:11 +0000 Received: from white ([68.9.64.121]) by centrmmtao06.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.05.02 201-2131-123-102-20050715) with ESMTP id <20050918020909.MLFS20572.centrmmtao06.cox.net@white> for ; Sat, 17 Sep 2005 22:09:09 -0400 Received: from bob by white with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 1EGoc9-0001AL-00 for ; Sat, 17 Sep 2005 22:09:09 -0400 Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2005 02:10:00 -0000 From: Bob Rossi To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Fully anchor mi_gdb_test expected results. Message-ID: <20050918020908.GA4427@white> Mail-Followup-To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <20050804141750.GA11536@nevyn.them.org> <20050804142601.GC4054@white> <20050804143238.GA11996@nevyn.them.org> <20050804203704.GA4472@white> <20050804205747.GA22030@nevyn.them.org> <20050804211834.GD4472@white> <20050804224044.GB4931@white> <20050804224351.GA25174@nevyn.them.org> <20050804234959.GC4931@white> <20050918013154.GR8777@nevyn.them.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050918013154.GR8777@nevyn.them.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i X-SW-Source: 2005-09/txt/msg00148.txt.bz2 On Sat, Sep 17, 2005 at 09:31:55PM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > On Thu, Aug 04, 2005 at 07:49:59PM -0400, Bob Rossi wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 04, 2005 at 06:43:51PM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > > On Thu, Aug 04, 2005 at 06:40:44PM -0400, Bob Rossi wrote: > > > > Here are my testsuite results. The first one looks like a bug I > > > > introduced, and the others look like random thread pass/failures. Is > > > > that correct? > > > > > > Yes. Does removing two backslashes in sizeof.exp fix it? They > > > shouldn't have been there at all. > > > > Geez Daniel, thanks for all the help. Here is the patch that plays > > nicely with the testsuite. I captured both the MI input command and the > > MI output command. Eventually testing can be done on the MI input > > command also. > > Hi Bob, > > I don't remember - what's the status of this patch? I think there were > no more problems with it. I'm still working on this patch, I should be able to post something next week though. > I'm a bit curious about this though: > > > + -re "^(.*$string_regex.*)($pattern\[\r\n\]+$mi_gdb_prompt\[ \]*)$" { > > + # At this point, $expect_out(1,string) is the MI input command. > > + # and $expect_out(2,string) is the MI output command. > > Seems like the .*'s there are really defeating the point of anchoring > it! Yeah, I'll try to make sure this goes away. Thanks, Bob Rossi