[rfa/gdb.mi] Fail (known bug) when ``Hello''

[Andrew Cagney <ac131313@cygnus.com>]

G'day,

The attatched changes the ``Hello'' test to recognize raw (instead of
MI's console) output reporting it as a fail.  Without the patch, the
test fails, eventually, via a timeout.

The test work does work on remote targets.  Fixing it on a native target
is hard - there are too many ducks and I'm having fun getting just one
of them to stand in a straight line :-)

	Andrew
2001-03-19  Andrew Cagney  <ac131313@redhat.com>

	* gdb.mi/mi-console.exp: Document ``Hello'' as a known bug.

Index: gdb.mi/mi-console.exp
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/testsuite/gdb.mi/mi-console.exp,v
retrieving revision 1.1
diff -p -r1.1 mi-console.exp
*** mi-console.exp	2000/02/23 00:25:43	1.1
--- mi-console.exp	2001/03/19 15:31:04
*************** gdb_expect {
*** 78,83 ****
--- 78,94 ----
  gdb_expect {
      -re "@\"H\"\r\n.*@\"e\"\r\n.*@\"l\"\r\n.*@\"l\"\r\n.*@\"o\"\r\n.*@\" \"\r\n.*@\"\\\\\\\\\"\r\n.*@\"\\\\\"\"\r\n.*@\"!\"\r\n.*@\"\\\\r\"\r\n.*@\"\\\\n\"\r\n" {
  	pass "Hello message"
+     }
+     -re "Hello" {
+ 
+ 	# Probably a native system where GDB doesn't have direct
+ 	# control over the inferior console.
+ 	# For this to work, GDB would need to run the inferior process
+ 	# under a PTY and then use the even-loops ability to wait on
+ 	# multiple event sources to channel the output back through the
+ 	# MI.
+ 
+ 	fail "Hello message (known bug)"
      }
      timeout {
  	fail "Hello message (timeout)"
From ac131313@cygnus.com Mon Mar 19 08:00:00 2001
From: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@cygnus.com>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@is.elta.co.il>
Cc: GDB Patches <gdb-patches@sourceware.cygnus.com>
Subject: Re: [rfc] Move Makefile.in:VERSION to VERSION file
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 08:00:00 -0000
Message-id: <3AB62D06.55308D3A@cygnus.com>
References: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1010319093420.21558G-100000@is>
X-SW-Source: 2001-03/msg00346.html
Content-length: 1226

Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> 
> On Sat, 17 Mar 2001, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> 
> > Per discussion on the gdb@ list, this patch moves GDB's version number
> > out of Makefile.in and into a separate file called (of all things :-)
> > VERSION.
> 
> This will get us back into the nuisance we had with COPYING and
> copying.c, due to the file-name letter-case nuisance on DOS/Windows
> file systems.  See this ChangeLog entry:

I was wondering about that - I had this vague memory.

>   2000-04-03  Eli Zaretskii  <eliz@is.elta.co.il>
> 
>           * Makefile.in (copying.c): Depend on copying.txt, not COPYING.
>           (copying.txt): New target, a link to COPYING.
> 
> Can we have a different name, please?  Why can't we have version.c in
> the first place, without any intermediaries?  COPYING was an external
> file, but VERSION is not, I believe.

I thought about that.  The reasons I created a separate file containing
just the version, rather than putting it in version.c, were two fold:

	o	keep it completly separate
		from the source

	o	make the update process as
		robust (mindless) as possible.

What exactly is the restriction on the filenames?  ``VERSION'' is a
fairly natural place to put a version number.

	Andrew