From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12111 invoked by alias); 16 May 2013 00:21:23 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 12099 invoked by uid 89); 16 May 2013 00:21:23 -0000 X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-6.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_WL,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.84/v0.84-167-ge50287c) with ESMTP; Thu, 16 May 2013 00:21:22 +0000 Received: from int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r4G0LLuM022642 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Wed, 15 May 2013 20:21:21 -0400 Received: from psique (ovpn-113-83.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.113.83]) by int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r4G0LHUh023135 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 15 May 2013 20:21:19 -0400 From: Sergio Durigan Junior To: Keith Seitz Cc: "gdb-patches\@sourceware.org ml" Subject: Re: [RFA] completer test [was Re: [RFC] Cleanup for make_source_files_completion_list] References: <51895A2F.8000504@redhat.com> <5191340B.60100@redhat.com> <519156F5.5090000@redhat.com> <5193C786.4000207@redhat.com> <5193E2DC.5000200@redhat.com> <51941E85.8010104@redhat.com> X-URL: http://www.redhat.com Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 00:21:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <51941E85.8010104@redhat.com> (Keith Seitz's message of "Wed, 15 May 2013 16:47:17 -0700") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-SW-Source: 2013-05/txt/msg00563.txt.bz2 On Wednesday, May 15 2013, Keith Seitz wrote: > On 05/15/2013 03:33 PM, Sergio Durigan Junior wrote: >> Wouldn't it be better to use the "complete" command? Here is what I see >> when I use it: >> >> (gdb) complete break filesy >> break filesym >> break filesym.c > > Is that necessarily "better" than testing what a user would actually > type? I don't know. gdb.base/completion.exp uses both forms. AFAIU "complete" is a non-interactive form of \t\t (maybe written exactly to make the testing process easier), and both forms should work correspondingly. If they doesn't, that's readline's issue. Anyway, when I said "better" I mean "clearer". The code could be a lot simpler than it is. But I will definitely not bikeshed on this :-). >> Also, ISTR "send_gdb" is deprecated, and one should use >> "gdb_test_multiple" instead. WDYT? > > Is send_gdb deprecated or gdb_expect? Or is their direct use discouraged? ISTR their direct use is discouraged, yes. Sorry for the confusion. > This is the first I've heard of send_gdb being deprecated. As far as I > can tell, there is no other way to directly test completion this > way. I do see, though, that completion.exp uses gdb_test_multiple > instead of gdb_expect... If it truly is deprecated, I would expect > send_gdb to be made "private" in some way. [deprecated_send_gdb?] Or > at least mentioned in lib/gdb.exp. As I said above, their usage is discouraged, but there are still lots and lots of old places which use them. > If there is a preference for one or the other [or an actual policy], I > will certainly make necessary changes. Sure, I'd wait for a maintainer's opinion on that, just in case... > Thank you for bringing this up. My pleasure. And thanks for the patch! -- Sergio