Re: [PATCH 07/13] fix up gdb.trace

Tom Tromey
2013-10-17T18:56:33Z

>>>>> "Pedro" == Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com> writes:

Pedro> ... not this one. I'd move all defaults to this else
Pedro> block. Same in tfile.exp.

Done.

>> -# Make sure we are starting fresh.
>> -remote_file host delete tfile-basic.tf
>> -remote_file target delete tfile-basic.tf
>> +if {!$purely_local} {
>> + # Make sure we are starting fresh.
>> + remote_file host delete tfile-basic.tf
>> + remote_file target delete tfile-basic.tf
>> +}

Pedro> Shouldn't we delete the previous version of the file
Pedro> in local mode? tfile.exp does keep this unconditional.

Done.

>> -gdb_test "target tfile tfile-basic.tf" "Created tracepoint.*" \
>> +gdb_test "target tfile $tfile_basic" "Created tracepoint.*" \
>> "target tfile"
>>
>> gdb_test "info trace" ".*tracepoint.*in write_basic_trace_file.*" \
>> @@ -108,7 +125,7 @@ gdb_start
>>
>> gdb_load $binfile
>>
>> -gdb_test "target tfile tfile-error.tf" "Created tracepoint.*" \
>> +gdb_test "target tfile $tfile_error" "Created tracepoint.*" \
>> "target tfile"

Pedro> This seems to introduce duplicated messages in gdb.sum.

Fixed.

Pedro> (A good exercise would be to compare gdb.sum before/after whole series.)

Yeah, I did do that, and I believe my comparison script handles
duplicates properly. But I will redo it before resending the branch.

Tom