From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 103274 invoked by alias); 9 Nov 2016 16:22:55 -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 102351 invoked by uid 89); 9 Nov 2016 16:22:55 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-4.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=Hx-languages-length:967 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 ESMTP; Wed, 09 Nov 2016 16:22:54 +0000 Received: from int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F2B0B7F6C8; Wed, 9 Nov 2016 16:22:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.11]) by int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id uA9GMp5S011934; Wed, 9 Nov 2016 11:22:52 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/5] Further cleanup/modernization of gdb.base/commands.exp To: Simon Marchi References: <1478650771-24430-1-git-send-email-palves@redhat.com> <1478650771-24430-3-git-send-email-palves@redhat.com> <994221f0964b21175ece863b9e4eed59@polymtl.ca> <1e856161-24c0-5f93-7847-a2bf9af57e8c@redhat.com> <937642fa3965d4029b5c98cb84a26954@polymtl.ca> Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org From: Pedro Alves Message-ID: <640edcd0-e0ee-c087-a2ac-f654beefb462@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2016 16:22:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <937642fa3965d4029b5c98cb84a26954@polymtl.ca> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2016-11/txt/msg00227.txt.bz2 On 11/09/2016 04:09 PM, Simon Marchi wrote: > On 2016-11-09 10:59, Pedro Alves wrote: >> And I'm wondering whether this below as well would be a good idea, >> or whether it'd obfuscate? If a good idea, maybe we'd put the new >> variable in gdb.exp. > > ... > >> @@ -45,7 +50,7 @@ proc_with_prefix gdbvar_simple_if_test {} { >> "else" \ >> " p/x 0xdeadbeef" \ >> "end"] \ >> - "\\\$\[0-9\]* = 0xdeadbeef" \ >> + "$valnum_re = 0xdeadbeef" \ >> "#1" > > > That's not bad. I was going to suggest using {} instead of "" to get > rid of most backslashes (untested): > > -"\\\$\[0-9\]* = 0xdeadbeef" > +{\$[0-9]* = 0xdeadbeef} I strikes me that I can use {}when building the input strings. I was already doing it in the new tests added by the following patches, but not in this one, for some reason. Let me give that a try. > > but with the variable it looks good as well. > Thanks, Pedro Alves