From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18400 invoked by alias); 10 Feb 2005 16:37:27 -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 18278 invoked from network); 10 Feb 2005 16:36:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 10 Feb 2005 16:36:58 -0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j1AGawcp026103 for ; Thu, 10 Feb 2005 11:36:58 -0500 Received: from localhost.redhat.com (to-dhcp51.toronto.redhat.com [172.16.14.151]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id j1AGavO18671; Thu, 10 Feb 2005 11:36:57 -0500 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 317497D79; Thu, 10 Feb 2005 11:36:12 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <420B8D77.5060708@gnu.org> Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 19:38:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.8 (X11/20041020) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bob Rossi Cc: GDB Subject: Re: question on mi-console.exp kfail case References: <20050210023356.GA27218@white> In-Reply-To: <20050210023356.GA27218@white> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2005-02/txt/msg00070.txt.bz2 Bob Rossi wrote: > Hi, > > Andrew, I've mailed you personally cause I think you originally wrote > the comment below, > > I've got the entire testsuite passing with the new syntax checker for > the MI output. However, I noticed the testcase mi?-console.exp has this, See my reply to your patch. I suspect we ``violently agree with each other''. The comment, written in ~'98, reflects the position taken tat that time. It's been superseeded by other events - MI clients end up doing what I thought was "hard". Andrew > gdb_expect { This is now wrong. GDB would only produce this when connected to a remote target. That code has been superseeded by remote file I/O. > -re "@\"H\"\r\n.*@\"e\"\r\n.*@\"l\"\r\n.*@\"l\"\r\n.*@\"o\"\r\n.*@\" \"\r\n.*@\"\\\\\\\\\"\r\n.*@\"\\\\\"\"\r\n.*@\"!\"\r\n.*@\"\\\\r\"\r\n.*@\"\\\\n\"\r\n" { > pass "Hello message" > } This is now right (but must come from the PTY). > -re "Hello" { > > # Probably a native system where GDB doesn't have direct > # control over the inferior console. > # For this to work, GDB would need to run the inferior process > # under a PTY and then use the even-loops ability to wait on > # multiple event sources to channel the output back through the > # MI. > > kfail "gdb/623" "Hello message" > } > timeout { > fail "Hello message (timeout)" > } > } > > In particular, I don't know what the first regular expression is, and > it's the one that allows for a "pass". What is it trying to match? > > When I run this testcase, I get, > KFAIL: gdb.mi/mi-console.exp: Hello message (PRMS: gdb/623) > > The output of the inferior is simply "Hello \"!\r\n". Since I have the > testsuite set up so the inferior output is redirected to it's own pty, > would it be fine for me to match the expected output with a PASS? > > Or is this a kfail for some reason I just don't understand? Andrew