Michael,

Ok here is another attempt, let me know what you think of this one. I
added the change log to the begning of the attached file, and I am pasting
the same below.

2004-08-26  Manoj Iyer  <manjo@austin.ibm.com

        * lib/gdb.exp (gdb_check_debuginfo): New procedure
        * gdb.gdb/complaints.exp: check if gdb has debug information.
        * gdb.gdb/observer.exp: check if gdb has debug information.
        * gdb.gdb/selftest.exp: check if gdb has debug information.
        * gdb.gdb/xfullpath.exp: check if gdb has debug information.


Thanks
-----
Manjo
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ Cognito ergo sum                                                          +
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

On Wed, 25 Aug 2004, Michael Chastain wrote:

> Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org> wrote:
> > That's not the same as what you've done.  gdb_file_cmd should not
> > always fail for objects without debugging information, since there are
> > other tests that work OK without it.  This only applies to the gdb.gdb/
> > tests.
>
> Damn, I noticed this, but I got so caught up in the procedural criticism,
> I forgot to mention it.
>
> Daniel is right; gdb_file_cmd is not a good place to test for this
> unconditionally.  You have to look in gdb.gdb/*.exp and find a good
> way so that you make this check only for gdb.gdb/*.exp.
>
> Michael
>