This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: RFC: gdb.c++/main-falloff.exp (a new KFAIL)
- From: David Carlton <carlton at math dot stanford dot edu>
- To: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at mvista dot com>
- Cc: gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com, Michael Elizabeth Chastain <mec at shout dot net>
- Date: 03 Jan 2003 12:53:00 -0800
- Subject: Re: RFC: gdb.c++/main-falloff.exp (a new KFAIL)
- References: <200212300612.gBU6Cro28859@duracef.shout.net><20021230154641.GA23984@nevyn.them.org>
On Mon, 30 Dec 2002 10:46:41 -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com> said:
> Secondly, I really dislike this form. Adding gdb_expect's all over is
> bad, because gdb_test has a much more thorough list of things to expect
> indicating various errors. Better would be to solve this problem with
> a little TCL. What do you think of:
> gdb_test_multiple "info locals" \
> {pass "(i|j|k) = (101|102|103)\r\n(i|j|k) = (101|102|103)\r\n(i|j|k) = (101|102|103)"
> kfail "gdb/900" "No locals."} \
> "testing locals"
Something like this seems reasonable to me. It would be nice if the
branches could execute arbitrary code, like gdb_expect does, though,
so that the xfails/kfails could be conditional on the operating
system, debug format, or whatever. Though I do like the fact that
your version means that you only have to type the message once for all
branches (and presumably the message would be optional if the message
is the same as the command).
David Carlton
carlton@math.stanford.edu