From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28540 invoked by alias); 2 May 2011 15:44:05 -0000 Received: (qmail 28512 invoked by uid 22791); 2 May 2011 15:44:03 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.0 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, 02 May 2011 15:43:48 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 227EA2BAD48; Mon, 2 May 2011 11:43:48 -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 x578QuGKPd6J; Mon, 2 May 2011 11:43:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2EC32BAD37; Mon, 2 May 2011 11:43:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 75339145615; Mon, 2 May 2011 08:43:45 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 02 May 2011 15:44:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Pedro Alves Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Jan Kratochvil , Marek Polacek Subject: Re: [RFC] Fixing gdb.base/completion.exp (PR testsuite/12649) Message-ID: <20110502154345.GF2489@adacore.com> References: <4DB82F26.30801@redhat.com> <201105021519.25614.pedro@codesourcery.com> <20110502145229.GA22957@host1.jankratochvil.net> <201105021630.04082.pedro@codesourcery.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <201105021630.04082.pedro@codesourcery.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: 2011-05/txt/msg00019.txt.bz2 My 2 cents... > The "\t" method of completion interacts with readline, the > "complete command" method doesn't. I think it's useful and > important to test the "\t" version, especially since it's > what CLI users are using. I agree. But at the same time, do we need to only test completion using this approach only (I initially suggested that we keep 1 test that uses this approach, and do the rest with gdb_test "complete ...")? Incidentally, the same argument can be made for testing the "complete" command as well, as this is what IDEs use. So, perhaps one possible evolution of the testcase is to write a procedure that verifies both forms of completion... -- Joel