From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1242 invoked by alias); 20 May 2010 17:06:49 -0000 Received: (qmail 1199 invoked by uid 22791); 20 May 2010 17:06:48 -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; Thu, 20 May 2010 17:06:43 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D04CC2BABA6; Thu, 20 May 2010 13:06:41 -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 UFJcEZbg9POR; Thu, 20 May 2010 13:06:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83F7D2BAB97; Thu, 20 May 2010 13:06:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 9F25BF58FA; Thu, 20 May 2010 10:06:39 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 17:09:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: msnyder@vmware.com Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, pedro@codesourcery.com Subject: Re: [rfa] gdb.base/volatile.exp / varargs.exp: replace send_gdb with gdb_test Message-ID: <20100520170639.GC3019@adacore.com> References: <4BF4497E.9040209@vmware.com> <201005201724.42637.pedro@codesourcery.com> <20100520163130.GB3019@adacore.com> <201005201746.48113.pedro@codesourcery.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <201005201746.48113.pedro@codesourcery.com> 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/msg00426.txt.bz2 > > I think we should - it's something that is so common, and the > > gdb.reverse section alone is littered with FIXMEs because of > > this issue. > > Yeah, I pointed this out before in that context, and also pointed > out in that context that for "set foo", we could try "show foo", and > confirm that what we tried to set actually was set. Similarly > for any test that should produce no output and that has a > corresponding "state getter". Makes total sense to me. It might be unfair to put that on Michael's shoulders for that patch, but if he's up for it, maybe as a followup patch... > > gdb_test_no_output? > > Sounds good. Michael: Are you up for implementing that function? It should be in testsuite/lib/gdb.exp, and implemented using the code that Pedro provided (minus the regexp part between the anchor and the \n\r). Otherwise, I'll try to work on it later this afternoon for you. -- Joel