Re: [PATCH v2 2/5] Further cleanup/modernization of gdb.base/commands.exp

Simon Marchi
2016-11-09T16:25:01Z

On 2016-11-09 11:16, Pedro Alves wrote:
> 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}
>>
>> but with the variable it looks good as well.
>>
>
> Here's the resulting squashed patch then. WDYT?

LGTM.