Re: [RFA 3/3] Linespec rewrite: New tests

[Tom Tromey <tromey@redhat.com>]

>>>>> "Keith" == Keith Seitz <keiths@redhat.com> writes:

Keith> This final patch, also dealing with testing, introduces several new
Keith> tests. While one or two of these add tests for new features, several
Keith> just add missing tests, like "break ::foo" (surprisingly /not/ tested
Keith> today).

This looks pretty good.

If these tests all pass against CVS gdb, I think this could go in
independently of the rewrite patch.

Keith> +set base "ls-dollar"
Keith> +set srcfile "$base.cc"
Keith> +set testfile "$base.exp"
Keith> +set exefile $base
Keith> +
Keith> +if {[skip_cplus_tests]} {
Keith> +    unsupported linespec.exp

Wrong text in the argument here.
I think the new trend, proposed in the not-too-distant past by Pedro
(IIRC), is to put some useful text in there instead of just the .exp
name, since that is redundant anyhow.

Keith> +set base ls-errs
Keith> +set srcfile "$base.c"
Keith> +set testfile "$base.exp"
Keith> +set exefile $base
Keith> +
Keith> +if {[skip_cplus_tests]} {
Keith> +    unsupported linespec.exp

Wrong text -- but there doesn't seem to be a need to examine
skip_cplus_tests here at all.

Tom