From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16418 invoked by alias); 4 May 2010 14:22:58 -0000 Received: (qmail 16369 invoked by uid 22791); 4 May 2010 14:22:57 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.1 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; Tue, 04 May 2010 14:22:54 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E5022BAB4C; Tue, 4 May 2010 10:22:52 -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 GLjLGGy+Vm7c; Tue, 4 May 2010 10:22:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 101E62BAB30; Tue, 4 May 2010 10:22:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id E5B0BF58F9; Tue, 4 May 2010 07:22:42 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 04 May 2010 14:22:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Pierre Muller Cc: 'Tom Tromey' , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFA] examine for TYPE_CODE_REF (PR 11349) Message-ID: <20100504142242.GF2768@adacore.com> References: <17731.9300863475$1272644394@news.gmane.org> <000c01caea4b$4ef18ba0$ecd4a2e0$@muller@ics-cnrs.unistra.fr> <001801caeb56$599dd070$0cd97150$@muller@ics-cnrs.unistra.fr> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <001801caeb56$599dd070$0cd97150$@muller@ics-cnrs.unistra.fr> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) 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: 2010-05/txt/msg00065.txt.bz2 > It's just that all the other tests around this one > where also written using gdb_expect, and I simply copy > and adapted one... I guessed that this was the case ;-). But using send_gdb/gdb_expect is bad, because the gdb_expect block typically does not handle all known error situations. That's why we have gdb_test and gdb_test_multiple. In the future, you can assume that it is required that new test be written using gdb_test/gdb_test_multiple, even if the tests already written around the new one still use send_gdb. Conversions of old uses of send_gdb/gdb_expect will also be very much appreciated. In fact, I'll add that to the list of possible projects in the Wiki - it's an easy task for someone who does not know GDB but wants to contribute :). -- Joel