From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4696 invoked by alias); 20 May 2010 22:07:25 -0000 Received: (qmail 4688 invoked by uid 22791); 20 May 2010 22:07:25 -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 22:07:20 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A60632BB431; Thu, 20 May 2010 18:07:18 -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 KZovS2PY-cA0; Thu, 20 May 2010 18:07:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58BE82BB42D; Thu, 20 May 2010 18:07:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 47A5EF58FA; Thu, 20 May 2010 15:07:16 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 22:07:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Michael Snyder Cc: Jan Kratochvil , "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" Subject: Re: [resubmit] gdb.base, r*.exp thru w*.exp Message-ID: <20100520220716.GH3019@adacore.com> References: <4BF59BBB.8020603@vmware.com> <20100520211446.GA8299@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> <4BF5ABAD.8030403@vmware.com> <20100520214614.GA11229@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> <4BF5AE60.1080500@vmware.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4BF5AE60.1080500@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/msg00458.txt.bz2 > Well, this is a very common and ancient idiom that is used > everywhere throughout the test suite. > > You have to assume that we don't care about anything between > the ".*" and the "$gdb_prompt $". If we do, the test is wrong, > but if it consumes more output than it was meant to, the > following tests will fail. To give more context about the whole effort, I have to say that this was one psychologically tough patch to review, because there are lots of little things that I would have wanted to improve. But Pedro is right that we should limit ourselves to semi-mechanical changes and not get carried away by trying to make things perfect. If the original test was already erroneous, we can fix that as a followup patch. That could be another mechanical patch... -- Joel