From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3438 invoked by alias); 20 May 2010 18:15:12 -0000 Received: (qmail 3429 invoked by uid 22791); 20 May 2010 18:15:12 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from smtp-outbound-2.vmware.com (HELO smtp-outbound-2.vmware.com) (65.115.85.73) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 20 May 2010 18:15:07 +0000 Received: from mailhost2.vmware.com (mailhost2.vmware.com [10.16.67.167]) by smtp-outbound-2.vmware.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6FA341013; Thu, 20 May 2010 11:15:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from msnyder-server.eng.vmware.com (promd-2s-dhcp138.eng.vmware.com [10.20.124.138]) by mailhost2.vmware.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB2898E78C; Thu, 20 May 2010 11:15:05 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4BF57C29.5030207@vmware.com> Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 18:24:00 -0000 From: Michael Snyder User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (X11/20090609) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Pedro Alves CC: "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" Subject: Re: [RFA] (long) sepdebug.exp replace send_gdb with gdb_test References: <4BF47D1D.2030005@vmware.com> <201005201741.52364.pedro@codesourcery.com> <4BF5780A.2010600@vmware.com> <201005201908.35488.pedro@codesourcery.com> In-Reply-To: <201005201908.35488.pedro@codesourcery.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2010-05/txt/msg00433.txt.bz2 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.