From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12311 invoked by alias); 26 Mar 2019 18:58:11 -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 12297 invoked by uid 89); 26 Mar 2019 18:58:10 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 spammy=H*f:sk:a2c7a98 X-HELO: mail-wm1-f66.google.com Received: from mail-wm1-f66.google.com (HELO mail-wm1-f66.google.com) (209.85.128.66) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Tue, 26 Mar 2019 18:58:09 +0000 Received: by mail-wm1-f66.google.com with SMTP id f3so13873829wmj.4 for ; Tue, 26 Mar 2019 11:58:08 -0700 (PDT) Return-Path: Received: from ?IPv6:2001:8a0:f913:f700:56ee:75ff:fe8d:232b? ([2001:8a0:f913:f700:56ee:75ff:fe8d:232b]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id i28sm36940438wrc.32.2019.03.26.11.58.06 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 26 Mar 2019 11:58:06 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix testsuite hangs when gdb_test_multiple body errors out (Re: GDB 8.2.90 available for testing) To: Pedro Franco de Carvalho , Joel Brobecker , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20190227055112.4A5E782D7B@joel.gnat.com> <8736ny7f8u.fsf@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <4d855905-32ce-ba4b-72f5-037f1796b37e@redhat.com> <87wokqd4gj.fsf@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <8736napwo9.fsf@linux.vnet.ibm.com> From: Pedro Alves Message-ID: <71cc7a6b-cc1e-7017-91bc-d9cc55d78a21@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2019 18:58:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <8736napwo9.fsf@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2019-03/txt/msg00606.txt.bz2 On 03/25/2019 07:43 PM, Pedro Franco de Carvalho wrote: > Pedro Alves writes: >> Maybe meanwhile, we could ask on the dejagnu list what's the purpose >> of this picking one of eof/timeout/default as an error block, see if >> that could be removed. I'd guess that dejagnu would change faster >> than expect here, or maybe I should say, less slowly. :-) > > I can do that if you want, and let them know about the comment tokens > affecting the error block selection too. I've done that today, after digging into expect's sources, to see how it manages to handle comments. [Why does remote_expect call the timeout/eof/default section if there is an error on the expect call?] http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/dejagnu/2019-03/msg00010.html [remote_expect gets confused by comments, unlike raw expect] http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/dejagnu/2019-03/msg00011.html Thanks, Pedro Alves