From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24882 invoked by alias); 22 Oct 2008 13:27:11 -0000 Received: (qmail 24873 invoked by uid 22791); 22 Oct 2008 13:27:11 -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, 22 Oct 2008 13:26:20 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19249108C9; Wed, 22 Oct 2008 13:26:18 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (209.195.188.212.nauticom.net [209.195.188.212]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04F5410815; Wed, 22 Oct 2008 13:26:17 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Ksdiw-0002Ve-OA; Wed, 22 Oct 2008 09:26:09 -0400 Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 13:27:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Denis PILAT Cc: gdb-patches Subject: Re: Mingw gdb validation Message-ID: <20081022132606.GA9276@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Denis PILAT , gdb-patches References: <48FC4417.2030807@st.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <48FC4417.2030807@st.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2008-05-11) 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: 2008-10/txt/msg00539.txt.bz2 On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 10:40:55AM +0200, Denis PILAT wrote: > Is there any chance for such a patch to be accepted ? > It allows the following test to be successful when using a MinGW gdb > (means a gdb compiled under MSYS environment or using > CFLAGS="-mno-cygwin" under cygwin). That depends why it's necessary... we have been testing mingw GDB binaries for at least a year, and I've never seen this failure. Are you using a Cygwin expect binary to drive the GDB? > If yes I will write a correct changelog entry. > The following $nl value is the only one that works both on linux and > windows when running a validation. > > > About gdb.cp/userdef.exp, I don't understand why only in part of the > tests we have a \r\n expected as the answer ? > gdb_test "print one % two" "\\\$\[0-9\]* = {x = 2, y = 3}" > gdb_test "print one && two" "\\\$\[0-9\]* = 1\[\r\n\]" <===== Why > expecting \r\n here and not above ? I don't know either, there it can probably be removed. It was probably to ensure that there wasn't another character after the 1, but gdb_test already does that. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery