Re: [RFA] New testes for process record save/restore commands

[Michael Snyder <msnyder@vmware.com>]

Joel Brobecker wrote:
>> 2009-10-19  Michael Snyder  <msnyder@vmware.com>
>>
>> 	* gdb.reverse/break-precsave.exp: New test.
>> 	* gdb.reverse/consecutive-precsave.exp: Ditto.
>> 	* gdb.reverse/finish-precsave.exp: Ditto.
>> 	* gdb.reverse/i386-precsave.exp: Ditto.
>> 	* gdb.reverse/machinestate-precsave.exp: Ditto.
>> 	* gdb.reverse/sigall-precsave.exp: Ditto.
>> 	* gdb.reverse/solilb-precsave.exp: Ditto.
>> 	* gdb.reverse/step-precsave.exp: Ditto.
>> 	* gdb.reverse/until-precsave.exp: Ditto.
>> 	* gdb.reverse/watch-precsave.exp: Ditto.
> 
> I only quickly scanned the files, since they are essentially duplicates
> of already-existing testcases. I didn't expect to find anything, but
> I actually did notice a couple of things:
> 
>   - Use of send_gdb/gdb_expect which should be replaced by gdb_test_multiple
>     (too bad we didn't catch those in the current ones when the testcases
>     were checked in)
>   - unnecessary "return 0" at the end of the script.
> 
> I think we shouldn't put anything unnecessary in these files, as we tend
> to forget why we put them, and the next developer who, like me, writes
> testcase by copy/paste, will repeat the pattern because he's afraid of
> breaking something otherwise.

OK, committed with *some* of the gdb_expects removed.
I'm not entirely sure how to remove some of them, and
I've no objection to anyone else banging on them.  ;-)