Re: [RFA] (long) sepdebug.exp replace send_gdb with gdb_test

[Pedro Alves <pedro@codesourcery.com>]

On Thursday 20 May 2010 18:57:30, Michael Snyder wrote:
> Pedro Alves wrote:
> > I didn't to a thorough review, but I noticed a couple of
> > issues.
> > 
> > On Thursday 20 May 2010 01:06:53, Michael Snyder wrote:
> >> -# Test deleting all breakpoints when there are none installed,
> >> -# GDB should not prompt for confirmation.
> >> -# Note that gdb-init.exp provides a "delete_breakpoints" proc
> >> -# for general use elsewhere.
> >> -
> >> -send_gdb "delete breakpoints\n"
> >> -gdb_expect {
> >> -     -re "Delete all breakpoints.*$" {
> >> -           send_gdb "y\n"
> >> -           gdb_expect {
> >> -               -re "$gdb_prompt $" {
> >> -                   fail "Delete all breakpoints when none (unexpected prompt)"
> >> -               }
> >> -               timeout { fail "Delete all breakpoints when none (timeout after unexpected prompt)" }
> >> -           }
> >> -       }
> >> -     -re ".*$gdb_prompt $"       { pass "Delete all breakpoints when none" }
> >> -    timeout                { fail "Delete all breakpoints when none (timeout)" }
> >> -}
> >> +delete_breakpoints
> > 
> > delete_breakpoints doesn't do what the test was doing before.
> > Notice the comment..  Whether what is being tested or not has any
> > value in this case, is another question, but it seems
> > to have been just blindly copied from break.exp.  You could
> > just delete it it seems.
> 
> It was copied from break.exp, and I figured as long as it was
> tested there, it didn't need to be tested again here.

Right, then as I said, you could just delete it instead of
replacing with something that behaves differently?

I actually don't care that much.  I was just pointing out that
this hunk wasn't strictly doing a 1-for-1 replacement as the
patch intends to (before the patch, this code issue a fail
if there was any breakpoint in the list, after the patch,
it deletes any breakpoint in the list silently).

-- 
Pedro Alves