From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5296 invoked by alias); 26 Sep 2002 20:25:28 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 5289 invoked from network); 26 Sep 2002 20:25:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO crack.them.org) (65.125.64.184) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 26 Sep 2002 20:25:28 -0000 Received: from nevyn.them.org ([66.93.61.169] ident=mail) by crack.them.org with asmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 17ug8O-000740-00; Thu, 26 Sep 2002 16:25:21 -0500 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 17ufCf-0000Wx-00; Thu, 26 Sep 2002 16:25:41 -0400 Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 13:25:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Fernando Nasser Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: RFC: Additional testsuite alternative Message-ID: <20020926202541.GA1899@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Fernando Nasser , gdb@sources.redhat.com References: <20020916192546.GA6174@nevyn.them.org> <20020926182132.GA26853@nevyn.them.org> <3D936C24.3070709@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3D936C24.3070709@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2002-09/txt/msg00449.txt.bz2 On Thu, Sep 26, 2002 at 04:20:52PM -0400, Fernando Nasser wrote: > Daniel, > > I don't think something like this would be of general use. The .exp > files have the full power of a script language and nothing can beat > that. Compiler tests are pretty much different from debugger tests, > because debuggers are interactive beasts. > > But as a special harness to drive C++ tests I think it is a good idea. > The majority of tests deal with checking for some formatted output of a > C++ construct and maybe the full power of scripting is not needed. > Maybe it can even be adapted to other languages where what is being > tested is of similar nature. There is a precedent already in that the > gdbtk tests use their own spec files (.test). > > Anyway, I suggest that you do not try and make it too general, but just > something that is capable of simplifying these types of C++ tests. Use > .exp for the non-trivial tests. OK... I may just use it for type formatting for now, then. That's and simple expression printing is what it is best suited for. > One more question: You still need a minimum .exp file, I believe, which > is what runtest will find and try to run. It is also part of what > identify tests in the results and so one. Yeah. I've been just using the harness as the .exp file; I'll keep it that way for now unless this is needed somewhere else. I'll submit the harness in a couple of days then. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer