From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20188 invoked by alias); 27 Mar 2009 18:47:44 -0000 Received: (qmail 20179 invoked by uid 22791); 27 Mar 2009 18:47:44 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 18:47:38 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0AFC2BABC1; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 14:47:36 -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 zzVFQxtB+aA3; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 14:47:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4ECCA2BAB74; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 14:47:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id EF371F5898; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 11:47:26 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 18:53:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Christophe LYON Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] obvious pattern fix in gdb.base/step-line.exp Message-ID: <20090327184726.GW9472@adacore.com> References: <49CCDB3D.5010302@st.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <49CCDB3D.5010302@st.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) 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: 2009-03/txt/msg00638.txt.bz2 Hello Christophe, > 2009-03-27 Christophe Lyon > > testsuite/ > * gdb.base/step-line.exp: Fix pattern to allow full path before > "step-line.c". I'd love to have some feedback from the other maintainers on this one. My first observation is that it doesn't fail for me when testing out-of-tree, using either DWARF or stabs. So I'm wondering why this is failure in Chistophe's case. Perhaps a dump of your debugging information (filename/dirname info for step-line.c and the line table as well) would allows to understand the difference. That being said, I don't see that we make a guaranty at the user-level that the name of the file will be printed using either its full path or just the basename, or anthing in the middle. So we could argue that the output with the full path is equally valid and that the expected output should therefore be enhanced to accept both. WDYT? > Index: gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/step-line.exp > =================================================================== > --- gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/step-line.exp (revision 308) > +++ gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/step-line.exp (working copy) > @@ -46,7 +46,7 @@ if ![runto_main] then { > return 0 > } > > -gdb_test "break f1" ".*Breakpoint 2 at .* file step-line.c.*" "break f1" > +gdb_test "break f1" ".*Breakpoint 2 at .* file .*$srcfile.*" "break f1" > gdb_test "continue" \ > "Continuing.*Breakpoint 2, f1 \\(i=4\\).*dummy \\(1, i\\);" \ > "continue to f1" -- Joel