On Fri, 11 Jul 2014 23:33:43 +0200, Doug Evans wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 2:25 PM, Jan Kratochvil
> <jan.kratochvil@redhat.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, 09 Jul 2014 23:10:56 +0200, Doug Evans wrote:
> >> --- a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/maint.exp
> >> +++ b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/maint.exp
> >> @@ -130,10 +130,11 @@ gdb_expect  {
> >>  # tests here!!
> >>  gdb_test_no_output "maint check-symtabs"
> >>
> >> +# Test per-command stats.
> >>  gdb_test_no_output "maint set per-command on"
> >> -
> >> -gdb_test "maint set per-command off" \
> >> +gdb_test "pwd" \
> >>      "Command execution time: \[0-9.\]+ \\(cpu\\), \[0-9.\]+ \\(wall\\)\[\r\n\]+Space used: $decimal \\(\\+$decimal for this command\\)\[\r\n\]+#symtabs: $decimal \\(\\+$decimal\\), #primary symtabs: $decimal \\(\\+$decimal\\), #blocks: $decimal \\(\\+$decimal\\)"
> >> +gdb_test_no_output "maint set per-command off"
> >
> > Is it needed to change this behavior?  It may break some user scripts working
> > fine with previous GDB stable releases.
> 
> Change in behaviour of something related to a maintenance command?
> Or were you referring to something else?

I am referring to the required change above - which will be required even for
other expect-like scripts using "maint set per-command off".

But in the end I am OK with it, it makes sense to no longer print the stats
after "maint set per-command off".


> One problem I wish to avoid is not doing anything expensive unnecessarily.
> And here that translates to not computing the values of statistics
> from before a command executes (so that one can then print the delta
> after it completes) if said statistics will not be printed.  That then
> translates to any turning on of a statistics-reporting command (mt set
> per-command foo) will not take effect until the next command.  How
> will that be a problem?

I was considering a problem that "maint set per-command off" output has changed.
No matter what it was before and no matter what it is now.


> > Besides that the startup statistics regression is not tested here but I can
> > post then a testcase for it.
> 
> As you wish.  Thanks.

Done below.


Thanks,
Jan