From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5719 invoked by alias); 2 Jun 2010 19:59:15 -0000 Received: (qmail 5708 invoked by uid 22791); 2 Jun 2010 19:59:14 -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; Wed, 02 Jun 2010 19:59:10 +0000 Received: from mailhost3.vmware.com (mailhost3.vmware.com [10.16.27.45]) by smtp-outbound-1.vmware.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 219D359005; Wed, 2 Jun 2010 12:59:09 -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 15350CD928; Wed, 2 Jun 2010 12:59:09 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4C06B80C.1080700@vmware.com> Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2010 19:59:00 -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" , Joel Brobecker Subject: Re: [RFA] gdb.threads/*.exp: send_gdb vs. gdb_test References: <4BFDBBFB.8030503@vmware.com> <20100601214837.GS3019@adacore.com> <4C058858.1070707@vmware.com> <201006012348.51797.pedro@codesourcery.com> In-Reply-To: <201006012348.51797.pedro@codesourcery.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: 2010-06/txt/msg00051.txt.bz2 Pedro Alves wrote: > On Tuesday 01 June 2010 23:23:20, Michael Snyder wrote: >>>> - send_gdb "continue\n" >>>> - gdb_expect { >>>> - -re "Continuing.*common_routine.*at.*$srcfile.*$gdb_prompt $" {} >>>> + gdb_test_multiple "continue" "continue until common routine run 15 times" { >>>> + -re "Continuing.*common_routine.*at.*$srcfile.*$gdb_prompt $" { >>>> + } >>>> default { >>>> fail "continue until common routine run 15 times" >>>> return 0 >>> Shouldn't we delete the "default" & "timeout" sections in this case? >> I left them in because they do a "return", which wouldn't happen >> if they were removed. > > Then, as I explained in other reviews, you should really move the > return statement outside of gdb_test_multiple, because as is, the > "fail"s caught by gdb_test_multiple's internals won't cause a return. > OK, fixed and committed.