From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7275 invoked by alias); 28 Dec 2011 03:51:11 -0000 Received: (qmail 7264 invoked by uid 22791); 28 Dec 2011 03:51:11 -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; Wed, 28 Dec 2011 03:50:57 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03AC62BAF39; Tue, 27 Dec 2011 22:50:57 -0500 (EST) 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 hb1knDVYR9s9; Tue, 27 Dec 2011 22:50:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 811142BAF33; Tue, 27 Dec 2011 22:50:56 -0500 (EST) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 61ADF145615; Tue, 27 Dec 2011 19:50:45 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2011 04:04:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Doug Evans Cc: Hilfinger@adacore.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFA] Add testcase for locals identified with FUNCTION::VAR syntax. Message-ID: <20111228035045.GK23376@adacore.com> References: <20111227195924.187BF92BF6@kwai.gnat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: 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: 2011-12/txt/msg00861.txt.bz2 Hi Doug, > > +# Some convenient regular expressions... > > +set num "\[0-9\]+" > Delete, use $decimal. > > > +set addr "0x\[0-9a-zA-Z\]+" > > This could be replaced with $hex, or do "set addr $hex". Either is > fine with me. Do you know where these are defined? And are there any other such useful globals that we can use? I need to document them in the testing cookbook, because I keep looking for them, and then eventually redefine them over and over again... Thanks! > I notice scope.exp has similar tests. > Would it make sense to move this there? Personally, I think it's fine to have a small self-contained testcase that deals mostly with scoping vs recursion. I actually like it better that way, but I know people may prefer it the other way. My opinion for liking smaller testcases is that it's usually easier to reproduce the problem: You don't have to sort through a lot of unrelated stuff that happens before the problem occurs. -- Joel