From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31419 invoked by alias); 30 Jan 2008 20:32:05 -0000 Received: (qmail 31411 invoked by uid 22791); 30 Jan 2008 20:32:05 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Wed, 30 Jan 2008 20:31:43 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6AADD2A9814 for ; Wed, 30 Jan 2008 15:31:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id NTZIos2f3Wj0 for ; Wed, 30 Jan 2008 15:31:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 353CE2A9813 for ; Wed, 30 Jan 2008 15:31:41 -0500 (EST) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 1417FE7ACB; Wed, 30 Jan 2008 12:31:39 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 20:43:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFA] Make symbol completion language-specific Message-ID: <20080130203138.GE12387@adacore.com> References: <20071228122825.GC24450@adacore.com> <20080129172800.GA3773@caradoc.them.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080129172800.GA3773@caradoc.them.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2008-01/txt/msg00826.txt.bz2 > > 1. How does someone verify that a GDB command does not return > > any output. Do we really have to do it "manually" (using > > gdb_send et al)? Right now, there is a hole in my testcase > > regarding this, and I need to fix it before I commit it. > > Pretty much, though I think you could do it with gdb_test_multiple; > see how lib/mi-support.exp does it. MI tests are anchored by default. > There may be more trouble doing it for the CLI, though, because > readline puts extra stuff in the output sometimes. Will take a look, thanks. I suggest we add a new routine inside gdb.exp that does check that a given command doesn't return any output. Would that be ok? > Also see gdb_expect_list, which is similar. I think that the way > you've written it lends to things being too far indented, which will > be hard to read... Thanks for the tip! I'll have a look as well. > > +struct string_vector > > +{ > > + char **array; /* The vector itself. */ > > + int index; /* Index of the next available element in the array. */ > > + size_t size; /* The number of entries allocated in the array. */ > > +}; > > We have a generic VEC nowadays. Argh, right. I will rewrite the patch to use a VEC, remove the FIXME, and resubmit. Thanks, -- Joel