From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11817 invoked by alias); 3 Jan 2003 20:53:19 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 11801 invoked from network); 3 Jan 2003 20:53:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO jackfruit.Stanford.EDU) (171.64.38.136) by 209.249.29.67 with SMTP; 3 Jan 2003 20:53:18 -0000 Received: (from carlton@localhost) by jackfruit.Stanford.EDU (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h03Kr1b31386; Fri, 3 Jan 2003 12:53:01 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: jackfruit.Stanford.EDU: carlton set sender to carlton@math.stanford.edu using -f To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, Michael Elizabeth Chastain Subject: Re: RFC: gdb.c++/main-falloff.exp (a new KFAIL) References: <200212300612.gBU6Cro28859@duracef.shout.net> <20021230154641.GA23984@nevyn.them.org> From: David Carlton Date: Fri, 03 Jan 2003 20:53:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20021230154641.GA23984@nevyn.them.org> Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.4 (Common Lisp) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2003-01/txt/msg00081.txt.bz2 On Mon, 30 Dec 2002 10:46:41 -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz said: > Secondly, I really dislike this form. Adding gdb_expect's all over is > bad, because gdb_test has a much more thorough list of things to expect > indicating various errors. Better would be to solve this problem with > a little TCL. What do you think of: > gdb_test_multiple "info locals" \ > {pass "(i|j|k) = (101|102|103)\r\n(i|j|k) = (101|102|103)\r\n(i|j|k) = (101|102|103)" > kfail "gdb/900" "No locals."} \ > "testing locals" Something like this seems reasonable to me. It would be nice if the branches could execute arbitrary code, like gdb_expect does, though, so that the xfails/kfails could be conditional on the operating system, debug format, or whatever. Though I do like the fact that your version means that you only have to type the message once for all branches (and presumably the message would be optional if the message is the same as the command). David Carlton carlton@math.stanford.edu