From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14941 invoked by alias); 6 Dec 2010 11:04:27 -0000 Received: (qmail 14933 invoked by uid 22791); 6 Dec 2010 11:04:26 -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; Mon, 06 Dec 2010 11:04:21 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC5252BAB51; Mon, 6 Dec 2010 06:04:19 -0500 (EST) 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 sNLcHckYfbHT; Mon, 6 Dec 2010 06:04:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80F612BAB35; Mon, 6 Dec 2010 06:04:19 -0500 (EST) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 50F55145B58; Mon, 6 Dec 2010 03:04:17 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 06 Dec 2010 11:04:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Marc Khouzam Cc: Tom Tromey , "'gdb-patches@sourceware.org'" Subject: Re: [MI] Duplicate --thread-group flag not detected Message-ID: <20101206110417.GC3031@adacore.com> References: <20101126163842.GJ2634@adacore.com> <20101202170954.GA3031@adacore.com> <20101204184638.GB3031@adacore.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: 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: 2010-12/txt/msg00040.txt.bz2 > You make it hard to say no :-) :-D > So here's my attempt at new tests for these cases. I wasn't sure > where to put it so I created a new mi-general.exp test which should > eventually test the parsing of general MI syntax, including the > --thread-group, --thread, --frame, --all, --reverse, flags. OK. I propose we treat this patch as separate. Please just go ahead with the code part, while we review the testing part. > The problem is that there is another bug that makes the new tests > fail, so I had to temporarily comment them out: > http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2010-11/msg00436.html Let's not comment them out, but mark them KFAIL instead, if we can. > 2010-12-05 Marc Khouzam > > * gdb.mi/mi-general.exp: New file. Overal, the test seems fine, but I have limited experimence with MI testcases. > +set testfile "basics" > +set srcfile ${testfile}.c > +set binfile ${objdir}/${subdir}/mi-basics I believe we decided in the past that it was a bad idea to share the same example program between testcases. One reason is that, if we split the gdb.mi testcase in multiple groups to allow more parallel testing, we might run into troubles. However, I am just saying that for your info. It's not your problem, and I know that you have little time for this testcase, and I already appreciate the effort you put into it. So it's fine to leave it as is. > + mi_gdb_test "18-break-insert --thread-group i1 bogus" \ > + "18\\^error,msg=\"Function \\\\\"bogus\\\\\" not defined.\"" \ > + "Valid --thread-group flag" Do we want to test the MI command with a sequence number. I know that they are allowed, but aren't they obsolete? Other than that, I don't have any other recommendation. -- Joel