From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10044 invoked by alias); 26 May 2010 18:04:57 -0000 Received: (qmail 9859 invoked by uid 22791); 26 May 2010 18:04:56 -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; Wed, 26 May 2010 18:04:46 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD4B52BAB13; Wed, 26 May 2010 14:04:44 -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 GughJQ50-rf9; Wed, 26 May 2010 14:04:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3023B2BAB0D; Wed, 26 May 2010 14:04:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 16B70F58FA; Wed, 26 May 2010 11:04:33 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 18:06:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Michael Snyder Cc: "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" Subject: Re: [RFA] gdb.asm/*.exp send_gdb vs. gdb_test Message-ID: <20100526180433.GE3019@adacore.com> References: <4BFC240A.20902@vmware.com> <20100526174448.GB3019@adacore.com> <4BFD5FB0.2050803@vmware.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4BFD5FB0.2050803@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/msg00609.txt.bz2 > Urgh, I also used gdb_test_no_output in some places. > Can I just change all the changelogs to say "gdb_test, etc."? I don't think we are really supposed to do that, for the same reason that we are asked to avoid contractions such as initialize_(foo|bar). In this case, my suggestion would be to simply say: * avoid the use of send_gdb/gdb_expect wherever possible. It's less complete, but it doesn't make gdb_test special compared to the other routines. Others may have a different opinion... -- Joel