From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6834 invoked by alias); 20 May 2010 18:24:09 -0000 Received: (qmail 6682 invoked by uid 22791); 20 May 2010 18:24:07 -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 18:23:59 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42EE92BAB7E; Thu, 20 May 2010 14:23:58 -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 sHvPBW5ZtyVZ; Thu, 20 May 2010 14:23:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E61FC2BAB7B; Thu, 20 May 2010 14:23:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 90A55F58FA; Thu, 20 May 2010 11:23:55 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 18:40:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Michael Snyder Cc: "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" Subject: Re: [rfa] gdb.base/volatile.exp / varargs.exp: replace send_gdb with gdb_test Message-ID: <20100520182355.GD3019@adacore.com> References: <4BF4497E.9040209@vmware.com> <20100520155010.GA3019@adacore.com> <4BF5793D.10305@vmware.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4BF5793D.10305@vmware.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/msg00434.txt.bz2 > >Just wondering why you added the "testfile" at the end of the test > >description? > > I copied it from an existing test. My guess is that it > uniquifies the output, which otherwise would be identical > for a bunch of tests. You mean, from another testcase? The test description is the combination of the testcase name (.exp file) and test name (in our case, the command). I think I double-checked in this specific testcase that the command was used only once, so the uniqueness should be guaranteed. > >>+gdb_test "set print sevenbit-strings" "" > >>+gdb_test "set print address off" "" > >>+gdb_test "set width 0" "" > > Checking.... it seems that we have instances of at least four > different styles for these three specific statements. I will > try to homogenize them. Just a thought, because I haven't really looked at what the "four different styles" are, but I agree with Pedro when he says that we should have separate patches for each step. If the homogenization is not a mechanical step, perhaps it would be a good candidate for a followup test? -- Joel