Mirror of the gdb-patches mailing list
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@redhat.com>
To: Pedro Alves <pedro@codesourcery.com>
Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Marek Polacek <mpolacek@redhat.com>,
	       Joel Brobecker <brobecker@adacore.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Fixing gdb.base/completion.exp (PR testsuite/12649)
Date: Mon, 02 May 2011 14:53:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20110502145229.GA22957@host1.jankratochvil.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <201105021519.25614.pedro@codesourcery.com>

On Mon, 02 May 2011 16:19:25 +0200, Pedro Alves wrote:
> On Sunday 01 May 2011 10:16:30, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
> > The "complete" command appraoch does introduce this new kind of race.
> > 
> > But the patch can be commited in two parts if it is preferred although
> > reviewing these racy send_gdb-gdb_expect cases for the intermediate step is
> > tricky and it gets dropped immediately afterwards.
> 
> What do you mean is dropped immediately afterwards?

Replacing this send_gdb + gdb_expect by gdb_test "complete ..." makes the GDB
codebase/testsuite more maintainable so I thought it could be changed now.

I found easier to replace the current constructs by gdb_test "complete ..." at
once although one can fix the gdb_expect first and delete it afterwards if you
wish.

Or are you against the replacement by gdb_test "complete ..."?

I have checked the code paths (despite what Tom says) and personally I cannot
imagine a difference between \t and the "complete" command.


> > > @@ -410,7 +365,7 @@ gdb_expect  {
> > >  		    timeout           {fail "(timeout) complete 'p \"break1.'"}
> > >  		}
> > >  	    }
> > > -	-re "^p \"break1\\..*$"
> > > +	-re "^p \"break1\\...*$"
> > >  	    {	send_gdb "\n"
> > >  		gdb_expect {
> > >  		    -re ".*$gdb_prompt $" { fail "complete 'p \"break1.'"}
> > 
> > I do not see this change as valid/relevant.
> 
> The pattern above reads:
> 
> 	-re "^p \"break1\\.c\"$"\
> ...
> 	-re "^p \"break1\\..*$"
> ...
> 
> It looked like "^p \"break1\\.c" could wrongly match the latter pattern,
> if the "c" wasn't in the buffer yet?

Aha.  But this testcase always FAILs (which it always considers as XFAIL)
because:
(1) gdb.base/break1.o prevents the completion (during in-tree build)
(2) GDB 7.3.50.20110502-cvs now completes it (with bundled readline) as:
	>p "break1.c < (note the trailing space)
    instead of expected
	>p "break1.c"<
    so it FAILs/XFAILs anyway.
So I am not sure what should be there when it cannot work anyway.


Thanks,
Jan


  reply	other threads:[~2011-05-02 14:53 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2011-04-27 14:59 Marek Polacek
2011-04-27 15:05 ` Joel Brobecker
2011-04-27 15:13   ` Tom Tromey
2011-04-27 15:23   ` Pedro Alves
2011-04-27 17:41     ` Marek Polacek
2011-04-28 14:19       ` Pedro Alves
2011-04-28 15:14         ` Pedro Alves
2011-04-29 14:10           ` Marek Polacek
2011-05-02 14:58             ` Pedro Alves
2011-05-01  9:17           ` Jan Kratochvil
2011-05-02 14:00             ` Marek Polacek
2011-05-02 14:19             ` Pedro Alves
2011-05-02 14:53               ` Jan Kratochvil [this message]
2011-05-02 15:30                 ` Pedro Alves
2011-05-02 15:44                   ` Joel Brobecker
2011-05-02 15:50                     ` Pedro Alves
2011-05-02 15:56                   ` Jan Kratochvil
2011-05-02 16:10                     ` Pedro Alves
2011-05-02 16:35                       ` Jan Kratochvil
2011-05-02 16:54                         ` Pedro Alves
2011-05-02 17:04                           ` Jan Kratochvil
2011-05-02 17:21                             ` Jan Kratochvil
2011-05-02 17:23                             ` Pedro Alves
2011-05-02 17:29                               ` Jan Kratochvil
2011-05-02 17:53                                 ` Pedro Alves
2011-05-02 17:56                                   ` Pedro Alves
2011-05-05 15:11                 ` Tom Tromey
2011-04-28 11:56 ` Marek Polacek

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20110502145229.GA22957@host1.jankratochvil.net \
    --to=jan.kratochvil@redhat.com \
    --cc=brobecker@adacore.com \
    --cc=gdb-patches@sourceware.org \
    --cc=mpolacek@redhat.com \
    --cc=pedro@codesourcery.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox