From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31921 invoked by alias); 18 Mar 2008 21:25:45 -0000 Received: (qmail 31905 invoked by uid 22791); 18 Mar 2008 21:25:43 -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; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 21:25:26 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47C042AA919; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 17:25:24 -0400 (EDT) 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 WQJ-Q9RbOptv; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 17:25:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0EF792AA8A3; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 17:25:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id D3E92E7ACB; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 14:25:21 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 21:25:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Markus Deuling Cc: GDB Patches , Ulrich Weigand Subject: Re: [rfc] Fix info spu mailbox command Message-ID: <20080318212521.GB3683@adacore.com> References: <200803171322.m2HDMfBG006655@d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com> <47E01DB4.6030900@de.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <47E01DB4.6030900@de.ibm.com> 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: 2008-03/txt/msg00261.txt.bz2 > +send_gdb "info spu mailbox\n" > +gdb_expect { > + -re "SPU Outbound Mailbox.*0xc0000000.*SPU Outbound Interrupt Mailbox.*0xc0000000.*$gdb_prompt $"\ > + { xfail "info spu mailbox" } > + -re "SPU Outbound Mailbox.*0x00000000.*SPU Outbound Interrupt Mailbox.*0x00000000.*$gdb_prompt $"\ > + { pass "info spu mailbox" } > + timeout { fail "(timeout) info spu mailbox" } > +} Any reason for not using gdb_test_multiple in this case (instead of send_gdb/gdb_expext)? gdb_test_multiple has been designed to handle this type of test, and as a bonus, you won't have to handle the timeout explicitly. -- Joel