From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 92845 invoked by alias); 9 Dec 2015 10:13:12 -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 92830 invoked by uid 89); 9 Dec 2015 10:13:11 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Wed, 09 Dec 2015 10:13:10 +0000 Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 94618317D8; Wed, 9 Dec 2015 10:13:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.11]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id tB9AD7TV017654; Wed, 9 Dec 2015 05:13:08 -0500 Message-ID: <5667FEB3.9050601@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 09 Dec 2015 10:13:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Kevin Buettner , gdb-patches@sourceware.org CC: Joel Brobecker Subject: Re: [PATCH] gdb.base/async.exp: Handle "asynchronous execution not supported" References: <20151207232255.15b0c35e@pinnacle.lan> <20151208080124.GA2712@adacore.com> <20151208131702.00048638@pinnacle.lan> In-Reply-To: <20151208131702.00048638@pinnacle.lan> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2015-12/txt/msg00172.txt.bz2 On 12/08/2015 08:17 PM, Kevin Buettner wrote: > On Tue, 8 Dec 2015 09:01:24 +0100 > Joel Brobecker wrote: > >> You might want to escape the period you're trying to match >> at the end of the sentence. Other than that, LGTM. > > Fixed in new patch. (See below.) > > I've addressed Pedro's concerns too. > Thanks, LGTM. >> Looking at this, would it be possible in this case to replace >> the send_gdb/gdb_expect into test_gdb_multiple? I'm not really >> sure, because of the async nature makes ordering of the output >> relative to the gdb_prompt different from usual, and thus perhaps >> outside the scope of what test_gdb_multiple is capable of doing... > > I don't know the answer to this either. I'll defer to someone > who knows more about this than I do. I think I recall trying gdb_test_multiple for 884e37dc, but not sure. The prompt matching within gdb_test_multiple will definitely be the thing to watch out for. > > Here's an updated patch... > Thanks, Pedro Alves