From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17623 invoked by alias); 27 Apr 2011 15:13:13 -0000 Received: (qmail 17604 invoked by uid 22791); 27 Apr 2011 15:13:12 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD 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, 27 Apr 2011 15:12:55 +0000 Received: from int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p3RFCgFQ030074 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 27 Apr 2011 11:12:42 -0400 Received: from ns3.rdu.redhat.com (ns3.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.255.199]) by int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p3RFCfel022746; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 11:12:41 -0400 Received: from opsy.redhat.com (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by ns3.rdu.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p3RFCfCb004694; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 11:12:41 -0400 Received: by opsy.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 500) id C00FE3781C7; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 09:12:40 -0600 (MDT) From: Tom Tromey To: Joel Brobecker Cc: Marek Polacek , "gdb-patches\@sourceware.org" Subject: Re: [RFC] Fixing gdb.base/completion.exp (PR testsuite/12649) References: <4DB82F26.30801@redhat.com> <20110427150529.GA2489@adacore.com> Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 15:13:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20110427150529.GA2489@adacore.com> (Joel Brobecker's message of "Wed, 27 Apr 2011 08:05:29 -0700") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii 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: 2011-04/txt/msg00510.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Joel" == Joel Brobecker writes: >> Thus, my point is that we could replace those "send_gdb + sleep + >> gdb_expect" sequences with just one gdb_test{,multiple,no_output}. I >> don't know yet if this transformation is possible for every test in >> the completion.exp file. Maybe the changes would be quite dramatical. >> However, this test would be _much_ simpler and much faster. Also, the >> current formatting is ugly ;). >> >> So, do you think this is a good idea? Is there something I'm missing? Joel> I don't know the history of the testcase, and this is only my own Joel> opinion, but I tend to agree with you. I think we should keep one Joel> test with \t, to make sure that a tab does trigger the completion, Joel> but the rest of the testcase should be using the "complete" command. Joel> That's what we do at AdaCore anyways... I tend to agree. One concern I do have is that "complete" and TAB completion aren't always equivalent. There is a PR open about this IIRC. IIRC the issue is that one approach respects some kind of completion limit and the other does not. But, if this is tested, it will presumably show up in the conversion. Tom