From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15482 invoked by alias); 16 May 2013 00:27:27 -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 15473 invoked by uid 89); 16 May 2013 00:27:27 -0000 X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-3.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_YE,RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 Received: from elasmtp-banded.atl.sa.earthlink.net (HELO elasmtp-banded.atl.sa.earthlink.net) (209.86.89.70) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.84/v0.84-167-ge50287c) with ESMTP; Thu, 16 May 2013 00:27:26 +0000 Received: from [68.96.200.16] (helo=macbook2.local) by elasmtp-banded.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1Ucm2W-0000s8-KE for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Wed, 15 May 2013 20:27:24 -0400 Message-ID: <519427DD.3080001@earthlink.net> Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 00:27:00 -0000 From: Stan Shebs User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org 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> <51941E85.8010104@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <51941E85.8010104@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ELNK-Trace: ae6f8838ff913eba0cc1426638a40ef67e972de0d01da9403ff6ac55fae71e8a8afb21b2a8d57786350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c X-SW-Source: 2013-05/txt/msg00564.txt.bz2 On 5/15/13 4:47 PM, Keith Seitz wrote: > 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. I think send_gdb and gdb_expect are still key building blocks, but most of their uses have been for multi-outcome tests that can be done as well or better with gdb_test_multiple. It may even be that gdb_test_multiple suffices for all of the existing send_gdb/gdb_expect pairs, but I don't imagine anyone has the fortitude to work through every one of them. :-) Stan stan@codesourcery.com