From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca by simark.ca with LMTP id hKBnDrHgXGHZKwAAWB0awg (envelope-from ) for ; Tue, 05 Oct 2021 19:33:05 -0400 Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id 2B57F1EE1B; Tue, 5 Oct 2021 19:33:05 -0400 (EDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on simark.ca X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from sourceware.org (server2.sourceware.org [8.43.85.97]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7FCA91EDDB for ; Tue, 5 Oct 2021 19:33:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C923D385B83B for ; Tue, 5 Oct 2021 23:33:03 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org C923D385B83B DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org; s=default; t=1633476783; bh=1cqS8kuJ0Y5cgWmuREu6TkK3zhDLwcFVhAhNvPx3CrI=; h=Subject:To:References:Date:In-Reply-To:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe:From:Reply-To: From; b=IZ5AT5ztBT8DqXDHo6uqpQlt0s4i7CYR+dVbqU5SbUevzDcfu6NHk8iAD6aKEj5yx dpmAcxiJabO5ogeKCGG6DZuJi+ZW3Fc8Mnjl4Dqqf1tGONV5q97dckbIs0OhigpaXO mKOjr4l8MTomKii4Iw3R/DUkyGR4xTEScoXJAHWs= Received: from smtp-out2.suse.de (smtp-out2.suse.de [195.135.220.29]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 570DE385C40E for ; Tue, 5 Oct 2021 23:32:11 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 570DE385C40E Received: from imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de [192.168.254.74]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-521) server-digest SHA512) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-out2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6621C2005B; Tue, 5 Oct 2021 23:32:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de [192.168.254.74]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-521) server-digest SHA512) (No client certificate requested) by imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 380AB13DE8; Tue, 5 Oct 2021 23:32:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dovecot-director2.suse.de ([192.168.254.65]) by imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de with ESMTPSA id guN/CnrgXGGXegAAMHmgww (envelope-from ); Tue, 05 Oct 2021 23:32:10 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH][gdb/testsuite] Make tui testing less verbose To: Tom Tromey , Tom de Vries via Gdb-patches References: <20211005132252.GA19305@delia> <877derz6fv.fsf@tromey.com> Message-ID: <24207260-f0fb-187d-811f-620aa2d32581@suse.de> Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2021 01:32:09 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.12.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <877derz6fv.fsf@tromey.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: gdb-patches@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , From: Tom de Vries via Gdb-patches Reply-To: Tom de Vries Errors-To: gdb-patches-bounces+public-inbox=simark.ca@sourceware.org Sender: "Gdb-patches" On 10/5/21 8:12 PM, Tom Tromey wrote: >>>>>> "Tom" == Tom de Vries via Gdb-patches writes: > > Tom> Brings down verbosity to something more reasonable: > Tom> ... > Tom> $ wc -l gdb.log > Tom> 3221 gdb.log > Tom> ... > > Tom> Tested on x86_64-linux. > > Tom> Any comments? > > It seems fine to me. I don't know what others do, but when I'm > debugging TUI test cases I normally end up hacking in a bunch of > dump_screen calls or whatever, as needed, then remove them at the end. I do the same, and my ambition here was to make adding those calls superfluous. > So I'd probably be fine with even less logging. Ack, but perhaps for maintainers less experienced with TUI test-cases it'll be easier to parse the initial log and analyze problems (without requiring them to know where to add those calls). Thanks, - Tom