From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-return-9309-listarch-gdb=sourceware.cygnus.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 25825 invoked by alias); 24 Jun 2002 20:20:35 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-subscribe@sources.redhat.com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb@sources.redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-help@sources.redhat.com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com
Received: (qmail 25798 invoked from network); 24 Jun 2002 20:20:32 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO cygnus.com) (205.180.83.203)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 24 Jun 2002 20:20:32 -0000
Received: from localhost.redhat.com (remus.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.27.252])
	by runyon.cygnus.com (8.8.7-cygnus/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA01680;
	Mon, 24 Jun 2002 13:20:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 469)
	id 31E20107D4; Mon, 24 Jun 2002 16:19:37 -0400 (EDT)
From: Elena Zannoni <ezannoni@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <15639.32472.649318.105460@localhost.redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 13:20:00 -0000
To: Keith Seitz <keiths@redhat.com>
Cc: <gdb@sources.redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [MI/testsuite] mi_gdb_test: expected result priority?
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.33.0206241238300.24067-100000@makita.cygnus.com>
References: <Pine.GSO.4.33.0206241238300.24067-100000@makita.cygnus.com>
X-SW-Source: 2002-06/txt/msg00223.txt.bz2

Keith Seitz writes:
 > Hi,
 > 
 > I've been writing some MI tests for all the stuff that I've been adding,
 > and I ran across an anomaly...
 > 
 > When mi_gdb_test actually calls expect, it does:
 > 
 >     gdb_expect $tmt {
 > 	 -re "\\*\\*\\* DOSEXIT code.*" {
 > 	     if { $message != "" } {
 > 		 fail "$message";
 > 	     }
 > 	     gdb_suppress_entire_file "GDB died";
 > 	     return -1;
 > 	 }
 > 	 -re "Ending remote debugging.*$mi_gdb_prompt\[ \]*$" {
 > 	    if ![isnative] then {
 > 		warning "Can`t communicate to remote target."
 > 	    }
 > 	    gdb_exit
 > 	    gdb_start
 > 	    set result -1
 > 	}
 > 	 -re "(${question_string})$" {
 > 	    send_gdb "$response_string\n";
 > 	    exp_continue;
 > 	}
 > 	 -re "Undefined.* command:.*$mi_gdb_prompt\[ \]*$" {
 > 	    perror "Undefined command \"$command\"."
 >             fail "$message"
 > 	    set result 1
 > 	}
 > 	 -re "Ambiguous command.*$mi_gdb_prompt\[ \]*$" {
 > 	    perror "\"$command\" is not a unique command name."
 >             fail "$message"
 > 	    set result 1
 > 	}
 > 	 -re "\[\r\n\]*($pattern)\[\r\n\]+$mi_gdb_prompt\[ \]*$" {
 > 	    if ![string match "" $message] then {
 > 		pass "$message"
 > 	    }
 > 	    set result 0
 > 	}
 > 
 > 
 > The astute reader will notice that the _real_ expected pattern by the
 > caller is pre-empted by several other patterns. Therefore if one wanted to
 > write a test to check for the string "Ambiguous command", well, you'd
 > automatically get a fail. Likewise, if you wanted to write a test that
 > checked for the string "Undefined command: \"bogus\".  Try \"help\"."
 > (which I am trying to do), one is screwed.
 > 
 > Is there any particular reason to not move the real expected result
 > pattern higher in the list (like to/near the top or something)??
 > 
 > Keith


Hmm, nothing has changed in that procedure since day one. It is kind
of a copy of the gdb_test one in gdb.exp. Maybe you can rearrange the
patterns to be like gdb_test? The 'pass' occurs earlier in there.

Elena