Re: [RFA 3/3] Linespec rewrite: New tests

[Keith Seitz <keiths@redhat.com>]

On 03/26/2012 09:33 AM, Tom Tromey wrote:
>>>>>> "Keith" == Keith Seitz<keiths@redhat.com>  writes:
> If these tests all pass against CVS gdb, I think this could go in
> independently of the rewrite patch.

ls-dollar.exp does pass today, so if you would like, I can commit that 
separately (now). Obviously, ls-errs.exp will not pass (as-is) because 
of the error message changes. I don't see any value in adapting this 
test to pass CVS HEAD.

> Keith>  +set base "ls-dollar"
> Keith>  +set srcfile "$base.cc"
> Keith>  +set testfile "$base.exp"
> Keith>  +set exefile $base
> Keith>  +
> Keith>  +if {[skip_cplus_tests]} {
> Keith>  +    unsupported linespec.exp
>
> Wrong text in the argument here.
> I think the new trend, proposed in the not-too-distant past by Pedro
> (IIRC), is to put some useful text in there instead of just the .exp
> name, since that is redundant anyhow.

Whoops. I've updated that.

> Keith>  +set base ls-errs
> Keith>  +set srcfile "$base.c"
> Keith>  +set testfile "$base.exp"
> Keith>  +set exefile $base
> Keith>  +
> Keith>  +if {[skip_cplus_tests]} {
> Keith>  +    unsupported linespec.exp
>
> Wrong text -- but there doesn't seem to be a need to examine
> skip_cplus_tests here at all.

Yeah, another cut-n-paste casualty. I've removed that and pushed both 
fixes to the archer branch.

Keith