Re: [resubmit] gdb.base, r*.exp thru w*.exp

[Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@redhat.com>]

On Thu, 20 May 2010 23:37:49 +0200, Michael Snyder wrote:
> Jan Kratochvil wrote:
> >On Thu, 20 May 2010 22:29:47 +0200, Michael Snyder wrote:
> >>+	-re ".*in main after func1.*$gdb_prompt $" {
> >
> >Sorry for not a complete review but for this case there should be:
> >
> >	-re ".*in main after func1.*\r\n$gdb_prompt $" {
> >
> >or lib/gdb.exp proc gdb_test is using:
> >
> >	-re ".*in main after func1.*[\r\n]+$gdb_prompt $" {
> >
> >as just "$gdb_prompt $" is needlessly  weak in practical cases causing false
> >positives.
> 
> Thanks for the review -- but I don't follow you.
> 
> What is it about this particular case that you think requires
> disambiguating?  Or are you saying this in general?

It was said in general.

There could be for example output

(gdb) return
Make func1 return now? (y or n) y
#0  main () at ./gdb.base/return.c:31
31        printf("in debugger (gdb) after func1\n");
(gdb) 

and if expect would read(2) just the part 

(gdb) return
Make func1 return now? (y or n) y
#0  main () at ./gdb.base/return.c:31
31        printf("in debugger (gdb) 

before the next part of input arrives it can have a false termination of
waiting on the prompt.

That can happens for example for "info set" where the output contains text:
prompt:  Gdb's prompt is "(gdb) ".

(In this specific testcase there is no "(gdb) " contained in the output so it
cannot have a false positive.  But examining all the testcases would be
difficult.  Also I understand even "\r\n(gdb) " can have a false positive on
some random output.)


Thanks,
Jan