From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5706 invoked by alias); 20 May 2010 22:09:32 -0000 Received: (qmail 5697 invoked by uid 22791); 20 May 2010 22:09:32 -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-1.vmware.com (HELO smtp-outbound-1.vmware.com) (65.115.85.69) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 20 May 2010 22:09:28 +0000 Received: from mailhost4.vmware.com (mailhost4.vmware.com [10.16.67.124]) by smtp-outbound-1.vmware.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E3C41C019; Thu, 20 May 2010 15:09:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from msnyder-server.eng.vmware.com (promd-2s-dhcp138.eng.vmware.com [10.20.124.138]) by mailhost4.vmware.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8332CC9A1B; Thu, 20 May 2010 15:09:27 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4BF5B317.2000307@vmware.com> Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 22:21:00 -0000 From: Michael Snyder User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (X11/20090609) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Joel Brobecker CC: Jan Kratochvil , "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> <4BF5ABAD.8030403@vmware.com> <20100520214614.GA11229@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> <4BF5AE60.1080500@vmware.com> <20100520220716.GH3019@adacore.com> In-Reply-To: <20100520220716.GH3019@adacore.com> 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: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2010-05/txt/msg00460.txt.bz2 Joel Brobecker wrote: >> Well, this is a very common and ancient idiom that is used >> everywhere throughout the test suite. >> >> You have to assume that we don't care about anything between >> the ".*" and the "$gdb_prompt $". If we do, the test is wrong, >> but if it consumes more output than it was meant to, the >> following tests will fail. > > To give more context about the whole effort, I have to say that this was > one psychologically tough patch to review, because there are lots of > little things that I would have wanted to improve. But Pedro is right > that we should limit ourselves to semi-mechanical changes and not get > carried away by trying to make things perfect. If the original test was > already erroneous, we can fix that as a followup patch. That could be > another mechanical patch... > Ditto. For instance, there are lots of places where I could substitute your new "gdb_test_no_output" routine, but I am refraining, unless I have to touch the test anyway. You may note that I am using it for the "sevenbit" business.