From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19845 invoked by alias); 1 Feb 2005 14:20:22 -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 19608 invoked from network); 1 Feb 2005 14:20:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lakermmtao07.cox.net) (68.230.240.32) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 1 Feb 2005 14:20:08 -0000 Received: from white ([68.9.64.121]) by lakermmtao07.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.03.04 201-2131-111-106-20040729) with ESMTP id <20050201142007.GZG20686.lakermmtao07.cox.net@white> for ; Tue, 1 Feb 2005 09:20:07 -0500 Received: from bob by white with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1Cvysy-0002bE-00 for ; Tue, 01 Feb 2005 09:20:08 -0500 Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2005 14:20:00 -0000 From: Bob Rossi To: GDB Subject: Re: How do I get regexp from expect at gdb_expect? Message-ID: <20050201142008.GA9962@white> Mail-Followup-To: GDB References: <20050129025743.GA4053@white> <200501290309.j0T39F1i020834@tully.CS.Berkeley.EDU> <20050131150652.GA7955@white> <20050131162609.GA19459@nevyn.them.org> <20050131211042.GA8411@white> <20050131212122.GA10092@nevyn.them.org> <20050131220050.GB8411@white> <20050131220354.GA11955@nevyn.them.org> <20050131221247.GC8411@white> <20050201035236.GA24182@nevyn.them.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050201035236.GA24182@nevyn.them.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i X-SW-Source: 2005-02/txt/msg00001.txt.bz2 On Mon, Jan 31, 2005 at 10:52:36PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > On Mon, Jan 31, 2005 at 05:12:47PM -0500, Bob Rossi wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 31, 2005 at 05:03:54PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > > On Mon, Jan 31, 2005 at 05:00:50PM -0500, Bob Rossi wrote: > > > > It also tighten's up the MI output command matching, I honestly don't > > > > know how the -break-delete was getting eaten in the regular expression, > > > > unless $pattern happened to have a .*. Oops, in that case, I guess we > > > > aren't really validation much, anything could have come out of GDB, and > > > > it probably would have passed. > > > > > > Your pattern doesn't start with an anchor. -break-delete wasn't eaten; > > > we just started matching after it. > > > > Please forgive my ignorance, I've been reading online as much as > > possible to understand tcl/expect ... > > > > I understand how anchors work, however, I didn't realize you could start > > matching in the middle of what the 'buffer' is. If it started matching > > after it, does that mean it's skipped forever? So basically, you can > > match a subset of the output, and the rest is lost (never matched)? > > That's correct. > > > If that's the case, the testsuite for the MI is matching even less than > > I thought. GDB could output almost anything, but then just have to match > > the last string, and the testcase would pass, correct? > > Yes. Sometimes this is even deliberate - fixing it would be > interesting, but probably quite hard. Could we have GDB turn off echo'ing with an MI command. -mi-disable-echo I think that would fix this entire problem. Thanks, Bob Rossi