From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-17417-listarch-gdb-patches=sourceware.cygnus.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 20602 invoked by alias); 7 Aug 2002 19:11:39 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sources.redhat.com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com
Received: (qmail 20595 invoked from network); 7 Aug 2002 19:11:37 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (216.138.202.10)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 7 Aug 2002 19:11:37 -0000
Received: from ges.redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id CB11D3E9C; Wed,  7 Aug 2002 15:11:36 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <3D5170E8.2030201@ges.redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2002 12:11:00 -0000
From: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@ges.redhat.com>
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 <kevinb@redhat.com>
Cc: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@cygnus.com>,
	gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: [rfa/testsuite] One pass/fail per expect list
References: <3D0A4801.8030001@cygnus.com> 	<1020805225525.ZM26569@localhost.localdomain> 	<3D4F48FA.1040108@ges.redhat.com> <1020806224649.ZM32174@localhost.localdomain>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SW-Source: 2002-08/txt/msg00167.txt.bz2

> On Aug 5, 11:56pm, 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)
> 
> 
> In the FAIL message, right?  If so, I think that'd be okay.

Yes.

Andrew