From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30865 invoked by alias); 2 May 2011 15:50:00 -0000 Received: (qmail 30853 invoked by uid 22791); 2 May 2011 15:49:59 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (38.113.113.100) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 02 May 2011 15:49:45 +0000 Received: (qmail 20872 invoked from network); 2 May 2011 15:49:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO scottsdale.localnet) (pedro@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 2 May 2011 15:49:45 -0000 From: Pedro Alves To: Joel Brobecker Subject: Re: [RFC] Fixing gdb.base/completion.exp (PR testsuite/12649) Date: Mon, 02 May 2011 15:50:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.5 (Linux/2.6.35-28-generic; KDE/4.6.2; x86_64; ; ) Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Jan Kratochvil , Marek Polacek References: <4DB82F26.30801@redhat.com> <201105021630.04082.pedro@codesourcery.com> <20110502154345.GF2489@adacore.com> In-Reply-To: <20110502154345.GF2489@adacore.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201105021649.45278.pedro@codesourcery.com> 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/msg00020.txt.bz2 On Monday 02 May 2011 16:43:45, Joel Brobecker wrote: > 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. Note there are "complete foo" tests already in the testfile, so we already cover both variants, though it's not systematic. > So, perhaps one possible evolution of the testcase is to write a > procedure that verifies both forms of completion... Yes, agreed. I suggested that at least twice in this thread. :-) -- Pedro Alves