Re: Mingw gdb validation

[Denis PILAT <denis.pilat@st.com>]

Pierre Muller wrote:
>   I thought about this a while ago also,
> and I was wondering if the best solution would not be to
> have a global nl variable defined in gdb.exp
> that would depend on the target you are testing.
>   I also thought at that time that we should
> define two global variables: nl and nls.
> "nl" as being something that is a single newline 
> defined generally as "\[\r\n\]" but probably as "\[\r\n\]\n?" for mingw32
> and
> "nls" if more than one newline is allowed and should generally be simply
> "\[\r\n\]*"
>   
If it's more than one we should use "\[\r\n\]+".

>   Once these two variables are set in gdb.exp,
> we should replace every "\[\r\n\]*" by a "$nls"
> and all \[\r\n\]" by "$nl" in the expected answer part of the tests.
>
>
>    This should allow a lot of currently failing mingw32 test
> to succeed.
>  It would also have the advantage of not changing
> anything for other targets, unless we find other targets that
> would benefit from a similar change, but that could then also
> be inserted in gdb.exp special cases for nl and nls variables.
>
>   Nevertheless, changing all tests to use nl and nls
> is probably not an easy task...
>   
That's just a long task, but I think it's easier than understanding why 
some tests require end-of-line testing, and some tests do not. See my 
previous mail about gdb.cp/userdef.exp.
I'm afraid there could be some tests that has been written to match the 
gdb behavior, even if it was not a correct behavior.
 
Denis