From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30734 invoked by alias); 20 May 2010 18:08:44 -0000 Received: (qmail 30724 invoked by uid 22791); 20 May 2010 18:08:43 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (38.113.113.100) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 20 May 2010 18:08:39 +0000 Received: (qmail 18732 invoked from network); 20 May 2010 18:08:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO orlando.localnet) (pedro@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 20 May 2010 18:08:38 -0000 From: Pedro Alves To: Michael Snyder Subject: Re: [RFA] (long) sepdebug.exp replace send_gdb with gdb_test Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 18:15:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.12.2 (Linux/2.6.31-21-generic; KDE/4.3.2; x86_64; ; ) Cc: "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" References: <4BF47D1D.2030005@vmware.com> <201005201741.52364.pedro@codesourcery.com> <4BF5780A.2010600@vmware.com> In-Reply-To: <4BF5780A.2010600@vmware.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201005201908.35488.pedro@codesourcery.com> X-IsSubscribed: yes 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/msg00432.txt.bz2 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