From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29654 invoked by alias); 19 Mar 2008 11:54:19 -0000 Received: (qmail 29646 invoked by uid 22791); 19 Mar 2008 11:54:19 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from NaN.false.org (HELO nan.false.org) (208.75.86.248) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 11:53:59 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0CA298149; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 11:53:57 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91A7298119; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 11:53:55 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Jbwri-0008Q4-D4; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 07:53:54 -0400 Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 11:54:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Markus Deuling Cc: Joel Brobecker , GDB Patches , Ulrich Weigand Subject: Re: [rfc] Fix info spu mailbox command Message-ID: <20080319115354.GA32034@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Markus Deuling , Joel Brobecker , GDB Patches , Ulrich Weigand References: <200803171322.m2HDMfBG006655@d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com> <47E01DB4.6030900@de.ibm.com> <20080318212521.GB3683@adacore.com> <47E0EAB3.5080703@de.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <47E0EAB3.5080703@de.ibm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-12-11) X-IsSubscribed: yes 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/msg00276.txt.bz2 On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 11:28:03AM +0100, Markus Deuling wrote: > Hi Joel, > > Joel Brobecker schrieb: >> 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. >> > > as far as I see gdb_expect is much more often used compared to > gdb_test_multiple. What is the advantage of gdb_test_multiple compared to > just send/expect? gdb_test_multiple is newer and most of the testsuite is very old, that's why gdb_expect is used. gdb_test_multiple is much better because it handles standard cases, like an unexpected prompt, without having to wait for a timeout. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery