From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8005 invoked by alias); 2 Apr 2004 22:02:51 -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 7994 invoked from network); 2 Apr 2004 22:02:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 2 Apr 2004 22:02:49 -0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i32M2njl000800 for ; Fri, 2 Apr 2004 17:02:49 -0500 Received: from localhost.redhat.com (to-dhcp51.toronto.redhat.com [172.16.14.151]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i32M2mj30449; Fri, 2 Apr 2004 17:02:48 -0500 Received: from gnu.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 421682B92; Fri, 2 Apr 2004 17:02:50 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <406DE30A.3000904@gnu.org> Date: Fri, 02 Apr 2004 22:02:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-GB; rv:1.4.1) Gecko/20040217 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [rfa/mi testsuite] Handle missing inferior I/O for mi-syn-frame.exp References: <20040228182815.GA17243@nevyn.them.org> In-Reply-To: <20040228182815.GA17243@nevyn.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2004-04/txt/msg00073.txt.bz2 > The output patterns for this test include things printed by the inferior > program. Obviously, for gdbserver, this output comes out in the wrong > place. This patch allows it to be missing for noinferiorio; I don't think > this compromises the value of the test. OK? Given that testing I/O isn't the objective of this test, just removing the output looks to be a better option. > BTW, we have one test that "verifies" (kfail'd) that output is properly > MI-encapsulated, and this test unintentionally "verifies" that it isn't. > Should I just remove recognizing the inferior's printouts unconditionally, > instead? Can you rephrase this? Andrew