From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1525 invoked by alias); 9 Jan 2013 20:35:49 -0000 Received: (qmail 1448 invoked by uid 22791); 9 Jan 2013 20:35:48 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 09 Jan 2013 20:35:43 +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 (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r09KZfN1025224 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 9 Jan 2013 15:35:42 -0500 Received: from barimba (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r09KZe1G031273 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 9 Jan 2013 15:35:41 -0500 From: Tom Tromey To: Yao Qi Cc: Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] Test of breakpoint output for dprintf References: <1355285581-28889-1-git-send-email-yao@codesourcery.com> <1355285581-28889-2-git-send-email-yao@codesourcery.com> Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2013 20:35:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <1355285581-28889-2-git-send-email-yao@codesourcery.com> (Yao Qi's message of "Wed, 12 Dec 2012 12:12:59 +0800") Message-ID: <87vcb6w0v7.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.2.91 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain 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 X-SW-Source: 2013-01/txt/msg00187.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Yao" == Yao Qi writes: Yao> We don't have a test to check the output of 'info breakpoints' and fields Yao> in "=breakpoint-created" notificiation, which are all related to Yao> 'print_one_breakpoint_location'. This patch adds tests for dprintf. Yao> Is it OK? Yao> +gdb_test "info breakpoints" "3\[\t \]+dprintf .* Yao> +\[\t \]+printf \"At foo entry\\\\n\". Yao> +\[\t \]+continue. Yao> +4\[\t \]+dprintf .* Yao> +\[\t \]+printf \"arg=%d, g=%d\\\\n\", arg, g. Yao> +\[\t \]+continue." "dprintf info 1" I find this style of test pretty hard to read. How about using "\n" instead of a newline? Or writing the string some other way to make it more readable? Or perhaps this is just a personal idiosyncracy of mine. I don't know. If others are ok with this, I don't mind. Otherwise the patch looks fine. Tom