Re: [PATCH v2] Require async support for DAP tests [PR34548]

[Rainer Orth <ro@CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE>]

Hi Andrew,

>>>> +	gdb_test_multiple "continue &" "" {
>>>> +	    -re "Continuing..*" {
>>>> +		set res 1
>>>> +	    }
>>>> +	    -re ".*Asynchronous execution not supported on this target..*" {
>>>> +		set res 0
>>>> +	    }
>>>
>>> Both of these would be better written as '-re -wrap "....etc..."' adding
>>> the -wrap will cause the $gdb_prompt to be matched.  I don't think it
>>> really matters in this case as you do call gdb_exit immediately after,
>>> so I think any pending output from GDB is discarded, but it does make
>>> the gdb.log a little neater, and so easier to grok.
>>
>> Unfortunately this doesn't work for the same reason I'd removed the
>> explicit $gdb_prompt anchor
>>
>>       -re "Continuing\\.\r\n$gdb_prompt $" {
>>
>> that I'd tried initially: in some cases, you get output like
>>
>> (gdb) continue &^M
>> Continuing.^M
>> (gdb) [Inferior 1 (process 3669382) exited normally]^M
>> FAIL: gdb.dap/ada-scopes.exp: continue & (timeout)
>>
>> instead of the expected
>>
>> (gdb) continue &^M
>> Continuing.^M
>> (gdb) gdb_caching_proc supports_target_async caused gdb_exit to be called
>>
>> causing supports_target_async to incorrectly return 0.
>>
>> So that's what I'd like to check in.
>
> OK, thanks for clarifying.
>
> The usual way to handle this is to run a synchronous command afterwars,
> and use that to discard any pending output,
>
>   gdb_test "p 123" " = 123" "clear expect buffer"
>
> but in this case, as you immediately exit, I don't think that's really
> needed.  I'm happy if you just fix the other issues which I think are
> still valid.

that's what I'd done in the patch version attached to my last message.

I've now committed the patch.  Now there's only the issue of backporting
it to the gdb-18 branch.

Thanks.
        Rainer

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rainer Orth, Center for Biotechnology, Bielefeld University