From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14094 invoked by alias); 27 Apr 2011 17:41:15 -0000 Received: (qmail 13818 invoked by uid 22791); 27 Apr 2011 17:41:13 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 17:40:55 +0000 Received: from int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p3RHeYID007828 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 27 Apr 2011 13:40:34 -0400 Received: from dhcp-25-89.brq.redhat.com (pdp-11.brq.redhat.com [10.34.24.63]) by int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p3RHeW4A013984; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 13:40:33 -0400 Message-ID: <4DB85510.90808@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 17:41:00 -0000 From: Marek Polacek User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.9) Gecko/20100827 Red Hat Thunderbird/3.1.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Pedro Alves CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Joel Brobecker Subject: Re: [RFC] Fixing gdb.base/completion.exp (PR testsuite/12649) References: <4DB82F26.30801@redhat.com> <20110427150529.GA2489@adacore.com> <201104271623.21862.pedro@codesourcery.com> In-Reply-To: <201104271623.21862.pedro@codesourcery.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 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: 2011-04/txt/msg00518.txt.bz2 On 04/27/2011 05:23 PM, Pedro Alves wrote: > What are these problems exactly? Duh. Now I'm not sure what I've meant when writing this. But you cannot, for instance, use the '\t' in gdb_test "blahblah\t", since this will end up with "ERROR: Undefined command". > I also wonder what's the rationale for the sleeps in the > current implementation? Probably some imperfect way to avoid races--so the buffer would be read at once after that sleep. > An idea would be for the test to exercise all supported completion > methods (using a convenience procedure, not duplicating > the tests!). That would be nice indeed. But only if we'd keep it at the same time as simple as possible. Thanks, Marek