Mirror of the gdb-patches mailing list
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Sergio Durigan Junior <sergiodj@redhat.com>
To: Andreas Arnez <arnez@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/16] Eliminate literal line numbers in so-impl-ld.exp
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2014 22:11:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <87tx2mfrw6.fsf@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87h9ymag24.fsf@br87z6lw.de.ibm.com> (Andreas Arnez's message of	"Wed, 29 Oct 2014 19:25:55 +0100")

On Wednesday, October 29 2014, Andreas Arnez wrote:

> Hi Sergio,
>
> Thanks for reviewing!

Thank you, Andreas!

> On Wed, Oct 29 2014, Sergio Durigan Junior wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday, October 29 2014, Andreas Arnez wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>> diff --git a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/so-impl-ld.exp b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/so-impl-ld.exp
>>> index 073c3df..03d10a5 100644
>>> --- a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/so-impl-ld.exp
>>> +++ b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/so-impl-ld.exp
>>> @@ -61,12 +61,12 @@ gdb_test "next" "21\[ \t\]*result = solib_main .result.;" \
>>>  
>>>  # Verify that we can step into the second shlib call.
>>>  #
>>> -gdb_test "step" "solib_main .arg=10000. at.*${libfile}.c:17.*" \
>>> +gdb_test "step" "solib_main .arg=10000. at.*${libfile}.c:.* HERE .*" \
>>>      "step into solib call"
>>
>> Can't you use ${decimal} here, instead of expecting anything?
>
> Certainly.
>
>>
>>>  # Verify that we can step within the shlib call.
>>>  #
>>> -gdb_test "next" "18\[ \t\]*\}" "step in solib call"
>>> +gdb_test "next" "\[0-9\]+\[ \t\]*\}.* STEP .*" "step in solib call"
>>
>> Same here: ${decimal} is made to replace this \[0-9\]+.
>
> Good point.  Changed both as suggested.  Also replaced \[0-9\]+ by
> ${decimal} in the patches for dbx.exp, call-ar-st.exp, call-rt-st.exp,
> jump.exp, and shlib-call.exp.  While reviewing again I also noticed that
> I introduced an excess ".*" in front of a regexp in foll-exec.exp and
> removed it.
>
> Note that some regexps are currently enclosed in a brace-quoted group,
> where variables are not substituted -- particularly in the various uses
> of gdb_test_sequence in call-ar-st.exp.  There I still use \[0-9\]+, to
> avoid larger modifications to the existing regexps.

Yeah, that's good.  You patch is a fix needed to run the testcase using
a new GCC, so it's better to leave general cleanups for other patches.

> Here are the changes I performed based on your suggestion:

They seem great now, thanks a lot.

I will review the other patches in the series later.

>
> --- a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/call-ar-st.exp
> +++ b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/call-ar-st.exp
> @@ -62,7 +62,7 @@
>  
>  set stop_line [gdb_get_line_number "-tbreak1-"]
>  gdb_test "tbreak $stop_line" \
> -    "Temporary breakpoint \[0-9\]+.*file.*$srcfile, line $stop_line.*" \
> +    "Temporary breakpoint ${decimal}.*file.*$srcfile, line $stop_line.*" \
>      "tbreakpoint at tbreak1"
>  
>  gdb_test continue \
>
> --- a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/call-rt-st.exp
> +++ b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/call-rt-st.exp
> @@ -74,10 +74,10 @@
>      "continue to loop_count"
>  
>  gdb_test_multiple "finish" "finish out from loop count" {
> -    -re "Run till exit from .0  loop_count \\(\\) at.*call-rt-st.c:$stop_line\[ \t\r\n\]+main \\(\\) at.*call-rt-st.c:\[0-9\]+\[ \t\r\n\]+\[0-9\]+\[\t \]+return 0;.*-finish1-.*$gdb_prompt $" {
> +    -re "Run till exit from .0  loop_count \\(\\) at.*call-rt-st.c:$stop_line\[ \t\r\n\]+main \\(\\) at.*call-rt-st.c:${decimal}\[ \t\r\n\]+${decimal}\[\t \]+return 0;.*-finish1-.*$gdb_prompt $" {
>  	pass "finish out from loop_count (finish1)"
>      }
> -    -re  "Run till exit from .0  loop_count \\(\\) at.*call-rt-st.c:$stop_line\[ \t\r\n\]+main \\(\\) at.*call-rt-st.c:\[0-9\]+\[ \t\r\n\]+\[0-9\]+\[\t \]+loop_count.*-finish2-.*$gdb_prompt $" {
> +    -re  "Run till exit from .0  loop_count \\(\\) at.*call-rt-st.c:$stop_line\[ \t\r\n\]+main \\(\\) at.*call-rt-st.c:${decimal}\[ \t\r\n\]+${decimal}\[\t \]+loop_count.*-finish2-.*$gdb_prompt $" {
>  	pass "finish out from loop_count (line 775)"
>      }
>  }
>
> --- a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/dbx.exp
> +++ b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/dbx.exp
> @@ -289,6 +289,7 @@
>  #test_func
>  #
>  proc test_func { } {
> +    global decimal
>      global srcfile2
>      gdb_test "cont" ".*" "cont 1"
>      gdb_test "step" ".*"
> @@ -300,7 +301,7 @@
>      gdb_test "cont" ".*" "cont 2"
>      # This always fails, but it's not clear why. -sts 1999-08-17
>      setup_xfail "*-*-*"
> -    gdb_test "func print_average" ".*in print_average.*\\(list=.*, low=0, high=6\\).*at.*average\.c:\[0-9\]+\r\n\[0-9\]+\[ \t\]+total = sum\\(list, low, high\\);"
> +    gdb_test "func print_average" ".*in print_average.*\\(list=.*, low=0, high=6\\).*at.*average\.c:${decimal}\r\n\${decimal}\[ \t\]+total = sum\\(list, low, high\\);"
>  }
>  
>  # Start with a fresh gdb.
>
> --- a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/foll-exec.exp
> +++ b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/foll-exec.exp
> @@ -119,7 +119,7 @@
>     #
>     send_gdb "next 3\n"
>     gdb_expect {
> -     -re ".*execlp \\(.*$gdb_prompt $"\
> +     -re "execlp \\(.*$gdb_prompt $"\
>                       {pass "step to exec call"}
>       -re "$gdb_prompt $" {fail "step to exec call"}
>       timeout         {fail "(timeout) step to exec call"}
>
> --- a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/jump.exp
> +++ b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/jump.exp
> @@ -40,7 +40,7 @@
>  set bp_on_non_call 0
>  set non_call_line [gdb_get_line_number "bp-on-non-call"]
>  gdb_test_multiple "break $non_call_line" "break before jump to non-call" {
> -    -re "\[Bb\]reakpoint (\[0-9\]*) at 0x\[0-9a-fA-F\]*: file .*${srcfile}, line $non_call_line.*$gdb_prompt $" {
> +    -re "\[Bb\]reakpoint (${decimal}) at ${hex}: file .*${srcfile}, line $non_call_line.*$gdb_prompt $" {
>  	set bp_on_non_call $expect_out(1,string)
>  	pass "break before jump to non-call"
>      }
> @@ -48,7 +48,7 @@
>  
>  # Can we jump to the statement?  Do we stop there?
>  #
> -gdb_test "jump $non_call_line" "Breakpoint \[0-9\]*, .*${srcfile}:$non_call_line.*" \
> +gdb_test "jump $non_call_line" "Breakpoint ${decimal}, .*${srcfile}:$non_call_line.*" \
>      "jump to non-call"
>  
>  # Set a breakpoint on the statement that we're about to jump to.
> @@ -57,7 +57,7 @@
>  set bp_on_call 0
>  set call_line [gdb_get_line_number "bp-on-call"]
>  gdb_test_multiple "break $call_line" "break before jump to call" {
> -    -re "\[Bb\]reakpoint (\[0-9\]*) at 0x\[0-9a-fA-F\]*: file .*${srcfile}, line $call_line.*$gdb_prompt $" {
> +    -re "\[Bb\]reakpoint (${decimal}) at ${hex}: file .*${srcfile}, line $call_line.*$gdb_prompt $" {
>  	set bp_on_call $expect_out(1,string)
>  	pass "break before jump to call"
>      }
> @@ -66,7 +66,7 @@
>  # Can we jump to the statement?  Do we stop there?
>  #
>  gdb_test "jump $call_line" \
> -    "Breakpoint \[0-9\]*, .*${srcfile}:$call_line.*" \
> +    "Breakpoint ${decimal}, .*${srcfile}:$call_line.*" \
>      "jump to call"
>  
>  # If we disable the breakpoint at the function call, and then
> @@ -75,7 +75,7 @@
>  #
>  gdb_test_no_output "disable $bp_on_call" "disable breakpoint on call"
>  
> -gdb_test "jump $call_line" "Breakpoint \[0-9\]*, .*${srcfile}:$non_call_line.*" \
> +gdb_test "jump $call_line" "Breakpoint ${decimal}, .*${srcfile}:$non_call_line.*" \
>      "jump to call with disabled breakpoint"
>  
>  # Verify that GDB responds gracefully to the "jump" command without
>
> --- a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/shlib-call.exp
> +++ b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/shlib-call.exp
> @@ -111,7 +111,7 @@
>      "breakpoint function shr2"
>  
>  gdb_test "continue" \
> -	"Continuing\\..*Breakpoint \[0-9\]+, shr2 \\(.*\\) at.*shr2\\.c:.*shr2-return \\*\\/" \
> +	"Continuing\\..*Breakpoint ${decimal}, shr2 \\(.*\\) at.*shr2\\.c:${decimal}.*shr2-return \\*\\/" \
>  	"run until breakpoint set at a function"
>  
>  
> --- a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/so-impl-ld.exp
> +++ b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/so-impl-ld.exp
> @@ -61,12 +61,12 @@
>  
>  # Verify that we can step into the second shlib call.
>  #
> -gdb_test "step" "solib_main .arg=10000. at.*${libfile}.c:.* HERE .*" \
> +gdb_test "step" "solib_main .arg=10000. at.*${libfile}.c:${decimal}.* HERE .*" \
>      "step into solib call"
>  
>  # Verify that we can step within the shlib call.
>  #
> -gdb_test "next" "\[0-9\]+\[ \t\]*\}.* STEP .*" "step in solib call"
> +gdb_test "next" "${decimal}\[ \t\]*\}.* STEP .*" "step in solib call"
>  
>  # Verify that we can step out of the shlib call, and back out into
>  # the caller.

-- 
Sergio
GPG key ID: 0x65FC5E36
Please send encrypted e-mail if possible
http://sergiodj.net/


  reply	other threads:[~2014-10-29 22:11 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2014-10-29 15:51 [PATCH 00/16] GDB testsuite cleanup, fix warnings with -std=gnu11 Andreas Arnez
2014-10-29 16:00 ` [PATCH 01/16] Eliminate literal line numbers in so-impl-ld.exp Andreas Arnez
2014-10-29 16:22   ` Sergio Durigan Junior
2014-10-29 18:26     ` Andreas Arnez
2014-10-29 22:11       ` Sergio Durigan Junior [this message]
2014-10-31 20:59         ` Sergio Durigan Junior
2014-11-13 13:15   ` Yao Qi
2014-10-29 16:01 ` [PATCH 02/16] Eliminate literal line numbers in dbx.exp Andreas Arnez
2014-11-13 13:18   ` Yao Qi
2014-11-13 14:16     ` Andreas Arnez
2014-11-14  0:26       ` Yao Qi
2014-10-29 16:01 ` [PATCH 03/16] Eliminate literal line numbers in call-ar-st.exp Andreas Arnez
2014-11-13 13:33   ` Yao Qi
2014-10-29 16:01 ` [PATCH 04/16] Eliminate literal line numbers in call-rt-st.exp Andreas Arnez
2014-11-13 13:36   ` Yao Qi
2014-10-29 16:01 ` [PATCH 05/16] Eliminate literal line numbers in ending-run.exp Andreas Arnez
2014-11-13 13:44   ` Yao Qi
2014-10-29 16:02 ` [PATCH 06/16] Eliminate literal line numbers in foll-exec.exp Andreas Arnez
2014-10-29 16:02 ` [PATCH 07/16] Eliminate literal line numbers in jump.exp Andreas Arnez
2014-10-29 16:02 ` [PATCH 08/16] Eliminate literal line numbers in shlib-call.exp Andreas Arnez
2014-10-29 16:02 ` [PATCH 09/16] Eliminate literal line numbers in mi-console.exp Andreas Arnez
2014-10-29 16:03 ` [PATCH 12/16] Drop non-prototype C function header variants: 'break' test case Andreas Arnez
2014-10-29 16:03 ` [PATCH 11/16] Drop non-prototype C function header variants: solib1.c Andreas Arnez
2014-10-29 16:03 ` [PATCH 10/16] 'callfuncs' test case: Fix typo in prototyped version Andreas Arnez
2014-10-29 16:04 ` [PATCH 15/16] GDB testsuite: drop non-prototype C function header variants Andreas Arnez
2014-10-29 16:04 ` [PATCH 16/16] GDB testsuite: Fix warnings with -std=gnu11 Andreas Arnez
2014-10-29 16:04 ` [PATCH 13/16] Drop non-prototype C function header variants: 'list' test case Andreas Arnez
2014-11-12 12:33   ` Pedro Alves
2014-11-12 15:05     ` Andreas Arnez
2014-11-12 15:18       ` Pedro Alves
2014-10-29 16:04 ` [PATCH 14/16] Drop non-prototype C function header variants: 'sepdebug' " Andreas Arnez
2014-11-13 14:06 ` [PATCH 00/16] GDB testsuite cleanup, fix warnings with -std=gnu11 Yao Qi

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=87tx2mfrw6.fsf@redhat.com \
    --to=sergiodj@redhat.com \
    --cc=arnez@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=gdb-patches@sourceware.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox