From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2547 invoked by alias); 2 May 2011 15:56:11 -0000 Received: (qmail 2528 invoked by uid 22791); 2 May 2011 15:56:10 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 02 May 2011 15:55:54 +0000 Received: from int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p42FtVAP010879 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 2 May 2011 11:55:31 -0400 Received: from host1.jankratochvil.net (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p42FtSU5016504 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 2 May 2011 11:55:31 -0400 Received: from host1.jankratochvil.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by host1.jankratochvil.net (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p42FtSej027887; Mon, 2 May 2011 17:55:28 +0200 Received: (from jkratoch@localhost) by host1.jankratochvil.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) id p42FtReh027886; Mon, 2 May 2011 17:55:27 +0200 Date: Mon, 02 May 2011 15:56:00 -0000 From: Jan Kratochvil To: Pedro Alves Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Marek Polacek , Joel Brobecker Subject: Re: [RFC] Fixing gdb.base/completion.exp (PR testsuite/12649) Message-ID: <20110502155527.GA27403@host1.jankratochvil.net> 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/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-IsSubscribed: yes 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/msg00021.txt.bz2 On Mon, 02 May 2011 17:30:03 +0200, Pedro Alves wrote: > 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. The question is do we test readline/ or gdb/? For the readline/ part there is already gdb.base/readline.exp and for the "\t" interaction there is (soon will be) at least: [patch] testsuite: Test readline-6.2 "ask" regression http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2011-05/msg00002.html gdb.base/readline-ask.exp For the gdb/ part tests I find the "complete" command fully sufficient. > In this particular case, since it would be desirable to keep at least one > instance of the original form, But not required to be in gdb.base/completion.exp . > And then the original motivation to rewrite > using a different method disappears or at least diminishes. generalization over whole gdb/: It is still very strong as the current codebase state is discouraging possible contributors keeping the GDB development slow. I understand one cannot change the whole codebase to a better / more maintainable form over night but when there are attempts and patches offered IMO the current codebase should not be actively kept worse. Thanks, Jan