From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15064 invoked by alias); 19 Jul 2002 17:49:29 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 15014 invoked from network); 19 Jul 2002 17:49:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (216.138.202.10) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 19 Jul 2002 17:49:26 -0000 Received: from ges.redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6C163DC5; Fri, 19 Jul 2002 11:45:07 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3D383403.2030605@ges.redhat.com> Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2002 11:16:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:1.0.0) Gecko/20020708 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jim Blandy Cc: Fernando Nasser , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: RFA: handle GDB prompt appearing in command output References: <20020204035847.9B3805E9DE@zwingli.cygnus.com> <3D2F64C3.7020908@ges.redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-07/txt/msg00416.txt.bz2 > Andrew Cagney writes: > >> As a side effect, this patch no longer checks that the order is >> correct. Is this intentional? gdb_expect_list might prove a better >> choice since it still enforces the order. > > > It wasn't deliberate, but I think I like it anyway. :) > > If the output from 'info set' appears in a different order, but the > stuff we're looking for is all there, I don't think that's grounds for > a failure. The output from ``info set'' should be sorted(1). If it isn't sorted i.e. is in a different order, we have a bug and, hence, the test should fail. Andrew (1) I'll ignore the effects that the locale could potentially have on the sorting order. Lets for the moment assume a C locale.