From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-73159-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 10588 invoked by alias); 20 May 2010 21:37:57 -0000
Received: (qmail 10579 invoked by uid 22791); 20 May 2010 21:37:57 -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 21:37:51 +0000
Received: from mailhost3.vmware.com (mailhost3.vmware.com [10.16.27.45])	by smtp-outbound-2.vmware.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E23AD59009;	Thu, 20 May 2010 14:37:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from msnyder-server.eng.vmware.com (promd-2s-dhcp138.eng.vmware.com [10.20.124.138])	by mailhost3.vmware.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DAB9FCD903;	Thu, 20 May 2010 14:37:49 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4BF5ABAD.8030403@vmware.com>
Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 21:46:00 -0000
From: Michael Snyder <msnyder@vmware.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (X11/20090609)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@redhat.com>
CC: "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" <gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
Subject: Re: [resubmit] gdb.base, r*.exp thru w*.exp
References: <4BF59BBB.8020603@vmware.com> <20100520211446.GA8299@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net>
In-Reply-To: <20100520211446.GA8299@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb-patches.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2010-05/txt/msg00452.txt.bz2

Jan Kratochvil wrote:
> On Thu, 20 May 2010 22:29:47 +0200, Michael Snyder wrote:
>> +	-re ".*in main after func1.*$gdb_prompt $" { 
> 
> Sorry for not a complete review but for this case there should be:
> 
> 	-re ".*in main after func1.*\r\n$gdb_prompt $" { 
> 
> or lib/gdb.exp proc gdb_test is using:
> 
> 	-re ".*in main after func1.*[\r\n]+$gdb_prompt $" { 
> 
> as just "$gdb_prompt $" is needlessly  weak in practical cases causing false
> positives.

Thanks for the review -- but I don't follow you.

What is it about this particular case that you think requires
disambiguating?  Or are you saying this in general?