From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17557 invoked by alias); 15 May 2013 23:47:20 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 17546 invoked by uid 89); 15 May 2013 23:47:20 -0000 X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-7.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_WL,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.84/v0.84-167-ge50287c) with ESMTP; Wed, 15 May 2013 23:47:19 +0000 Received: from int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r4FNlIQ4012085 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Wed, 15 May 2013 19:47:18 -0400 Received: from valrhona.uglyboxes.com (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r4FNlHDU012487 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 15 May 2013 19:47:18 -0400 Message-ID: <51941E85.8010104@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 23:47:00 -0000 From: Keith Seitz User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130402 Thunderbird/17.0.5 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Sergio Durigan Junior CC: "gdb-patches@sourceware.org ml" Subject: Re: [RFA] completer test [was Re: [RFC] Cleanup for make_source_files_completion_list] References: <51895A2F.8000504@redhat.com> <5191340B.60100@redhat.com> <519156F5.5090000@redhat.com> <5193C786.4000207@redhat.com> <5193E2DC.5000200@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2013-05/txt/msg00562.txt.bz2 On 05/15/2013 03:33 PM, Sergio Durigan Junior wrote: > Wouldn't it be better to use the "complete" command? Here is what I see > when I use it: > > (gdb) complete break filesy > break filesym > break filesym.c Is that necessarily "better" than testing what a user would actually type? I don't know. gdb.base/completion.exp uses both forms. > Also, ISTR "send_gdb" is deprecated, and one should use > "gdb_test_multiple" instead. WDYT? Is send_gdb deprecated or gdb_expect? Or is their direct use discouraged? This is the first I've heard of send_gdb being deprecated. As far as I can tell, there is no other way to directly test completion this way. I do see, though, that completion.exp uses gdb_test_multiple instead of gdb_expect... If it truly is deprecated, I would expect send_gdb to be made "private" in some way. [deprecated_send_gdb?] Or at least mentioned in lib/gdb.exp. If there is a preference for one or the other [or an actual policy], I will certainly make necessary changes. I'm using a similar test strategy for my explicit completion tests, which I am about to submit... Thank you for bringing this up. Keith