Re: duplicate test message style?

Re: duplicate test message style?

[Michael Elizabeth Chastain]

ac> PASS: gdb.base/sigbpt.exp: nopass SIGSEGV; stepi bp before segv
ac> PASS: gdb.base/sigbpt.exp: nopass SIGSEGV, stepi bp before segv
ac> PASS: gdb.base/sigbpt.exp: nopass SIGSEGV for stepi bp before segv

This rubs me the wrong way because it's a distinction that humans
would not make.

ac> PASS: gdb.base/sigbpt.exp: nopass SIGSEGV; stepi bp before segv
ac> PASS: gdb.base/sigbpt.exp: set breakpoint 0 of 1; stepi bp before segv
ac> PASS: gdb.base/sigbpt.exp: stepi out of handler; stepi bp before segv
ac> PASS: gdb.base/sigbpt.exp: clear breakpoint 0 of 1; stepi bp before segv

This is okay.

ac> PASS: gdb.base/sigbpt.exp: stepi bp before segv; nopass SIGSEGV
ac> PASS: gdb.base/sigbpt.exp: stepi bp before segv; set breakpoint 0 of 1
ac> PASS: gdb.base/sigbpt.exp: stepi bp before segv; stepi out of handler
ac> PASS: gdb.base/sigbpt.exp: stepi bp before segv; clear breakpoint 0 of 1

This is also okay.

So if you have a preference, between the two, pick the one you want.

I have a slight preference for the second form.  Here's why.  If I ever
notice the message, it's usually a context where I need to dig in and
and analyze it.  I think it would be a little easier for me to search
off the "outer; inner" style rather than the "inner; outer style".
But both of them are pretty searchable so either is okay.

Michael C

Re: duplicate test message style?

[Joel Brobecker]

> I have a slight preference for the second form.  Here's why.  If I ever
> notice the message, it's usually a context where I need to dig in and
> and analyze it.  I think it would be a little easier for me to search
> off the "outer; inner" style rather than the "inner; outer style".
> But both of them are pretty searchable so either is okay.

FWIW, that's my preference too.

-- 
Joel

Re: duplicate test message style?

[Andrew Cagney]

>>I have a slight preference for the second form.  Here's why.  If I ever
>>> notice the message, it's usually a context where I need to dig in and
>>> and analyze it.  I think it would be a little easier for me to search
>>> off the "outer; inner" style rather than the "inner; outer style".
>>> But both of them are pretty searchable so either is okay.
> 
> 
> FWIW, that's my preference too.

Good :-) Just committing a tweak ...

duplicate test message style?

[Andrew Cagney]

Michael,

To stop those duplicate messages I add a suffix to each test, although 
not consistently.  I've used various separators - ",", ";", "for" - vis:

PASS: gdb.base/sigbpt.exp: nopass SIGSEGV; stepi bp before segv
PASS: gdb.base/sigbpt.exp: nopass SIGSEGV, stepi bp before segv
PASS: gdb.base/sigbpt.exp: nopass SIGSEGV for stepi bp before segv

I should do this consistently.  How do either of:

PASS: gdb.base/sigbpt.exp: nopass SIGSEGV; stepi bp before segv
PASS: gdb.base/sigbpt.exp: set breakpoint 0 of 1; stepi bp before segv
PASS: gdb.base/sigbpt.exp: stepi out of handler; stepi bp before segv
PASS: gdb.base/sigbpt.exp: clear breakpoint 0 of 1; stepi bp before segv

or:

PASS: gdb.base/sigbpt.exp: stepi bp before segv; nopass SIGSEGV
PASS: gdb.base/sigbpt.exp: stepi bp before segv; set breakpoint 0 of 1
PASS: gdb.base/sigbpt.exp: stepi bp before segv; stepi out of handler
PASS: gdb.base/sigbpt.exp: stepi bp before segv; clear breakpoint 0 of 1

grab you?  That is a ``;'' separator with the common text either first 
or second.

Andrew