Re: [RFA] (long) sepdebug.exp replace send_gdb with gdb_test

[Michael Snyder <msnyder@vmware.com>]

Pedro Alves wrote:
> On Thursday 20 May 2010 18:57:30, Michael Snyder wrote:
>> Pedro Alves wrote:
>>> I didn't to a thorough review, but I noticed a couple of
>>> issues.
>>>
>>> On Thursday 20 May 2010 01:06:53, Michael Snyder wrote:
>>>> -# Test deleting all breakpoints when there are none installed,
>>>> -# GDB should not prompt for confirmation.
>>>> -# Note that gdb-init.exp provides a "delete_breakpoints" proc
>>>> -# for general use elsewhere.
>>>> -
>>>> -send_gdb "delete breakpoints\n"
>>>> -gdb_expect {
>>>> -     -re "Delete all breakpoints.*$" {
>>>> -           send_gdb "y\n"
>>>> -           gdb_expect {
>>>> -               -re "$gdb_prompt $" {
>>>> -                   fail "Delete all breakpoints when none (unexpected prompt)"
>>>> -               }
>>>> -               timeout { fail "Delete all breakpoints when none (timeout after unexpected prompt)" }
>>>> -           }
>>>> -       }
>>>> -     -re ".*$gdb_prompt $"       { pass "Delete all breakpoints when none" }
>>>> -    timeout                { fail "Delete all breakpoints when none (timeout)" }
>>>> -}
>>>> +delete_breakpoints
>>> delete_breakpoints doesn't do what the test was doing before.
>>> Notice the comment..  Whether what is being tested or not has any
>>> value in this case, is another question, but it seems
>>> to have been just blindly copied from break.exp.  You could
>>> just delete it it seems.
>> It was copied from break.exp, and I figured as long as it was
>> tested there, it didn't need to be tested again here.
> 
> Right, then as I said, you could just delete it instead of
> replacing with something that behaves differently?
> 
> I actually don't care that much.  I was just pointing out that
> this hunk wasn't strictly doing a 1-for-1 replacement as the
> patch intends to (before the patch, this code issue a fail
> if there was any breakpoint in the list, after the patch,
> it deletes any breakpoint in the list silently).
> 

Well, I'm trying to make as mechanical a change as possible,
without either analyzing or changing any more than I can help.

But OK, I'll take it out.