From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17993 invoked by alias); 2 May 2011 16:35:17 -0000 Received: (qmail 17844 invoked by uid 22791); 2 May 2011 16:35:17 -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 16:34:42 +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 p42GYMn9016047 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 2 May 2011 12:34:22 -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 p42GYJEp028575 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 2 May 2011 12:34:21 -0400 Received: from host1.jankratochvil.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by host1.jankratochvil.net (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p42GYJqS032533; Mon, 2 May 2011 18:34:19 +0200 Received: (from jkratoch@localhost) by host1.jankratochvil.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) id p42GYIZL032532; Mon, 2 May 2011 18:34:18 +0200 Date: Mon, 02 May 2011 16:35:00 -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: <20110502163418.GA30891@host1.jankratochvil.net> References: <4DB82F26.30801@redhat.com> <201105021630.04082.pedro@codesourcery.com> <20110502155527.GA27403@host1.jankratochvil.net> <201105021709.51088.pedro@codesourcery.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <201105021709.51088.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/msg00024.txt.bz2 On Mon, 02 May 2011 18:09:50 +0200, Pedro Alves wrote: > This is about completion, using one form or the other. > We could move the "\t" form to readline-completion.exp, > but I think a systematic approach to testing all the > completion methods is better, and helps maintenance in the > long run. I was addressing this by the readline/ and gdb/ parts testing differentiation, the first paragraph of my mail. > > 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. > > I took the time investigate the original issues with the code, write a patch > to fix them, explain the problems and the proposed fixes, in order to not keep the > knowledge to myself, and I've posted the beginnings of a patch that cleans > up the test further. I don't think it's fair to suggest I'm trying to keep > anything worse. There was the proposal using gdb_test "complete ...": Re: [RFC] Fixing gdb.base/completion.exp (PR testsuite/12649) http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2011-04/msg00538.html (I do not have that mail reviewed but it gives the idea.) I consider the gdb_test "complete ..." testfile better than the (even fixed) send_gdb-gdb_expect testfile. Therefore I consider proposing the send_gdb-gdb_expect testfile over the gdb_test "complete ..." testfile as "actively trying to keep the testfile worse". But there is the point that you do not consider the gdb_test "complete ..." method having the same testing coverage as the "\t" testing method. This is the point where we do not agree and I agree in such case the gdb_test "complete ..." change is not acceptable (for you). Thanks, Jan