From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11313 invoked by alias); 6 Aug 2002 03:57:00 -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 11296 invoked from network); 6 Aug 2002 03:56:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (24.112.240.27) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 6 Aug 2002 03:56:58 -0000 Received: from ges.redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F1163C90; Mon, 5 Aug 2002 23:56:42 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3D4F48FA.1040108@ges.redhat.com> Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2002 20:57:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:1.0.0) Gecko/20020802 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Kevin Buettner Cc: Andrew Cagney , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [rfa/testsuite] One pass/fail per expect list References: <3D0A4801.8030001@cygnus.com> <1020805225525.ZM26569@localhost.localdomain> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-08/txt/msg00114.txt.bz2 > On Jun 14, 3:46pm, Andrew Cagney wrote: > > >> The attached tweaks gdb_expect_list{} so that it only prints one pass / >> fail / ... message for the testcase. >> >> What are peoples thoughts on this change and if positive, is the patch ok? > > > Now that it's in and I've had a chance to use it, the only part that > I don't like is: > > >> - unresolved "${test}, pattern ${index} + sentinel" >> + # unresolved "${test}, pattern ${index} + sentinel" > > > I found it useful to see the (potentially long list of) UNRESOLVED > messages after the FAIL so that I knew how many other parts of the > test hadn't been checked. What about including the total number of patterns in the test result message vis: .... (pattern N of NN) Andrew