This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: MI/C++/references fixup
- From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at false dot org>
- To: Vladimir Prus <vladimir at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com, Nick Roberts <nickrob at snap dot net dot nz>
- Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2006 16:11:29 -0500
- Subject: Re: MI/C++/references fixup
- References: <200611291215.21876.vladimir@codesourcery.com> <200611291741.13617.vladimir@codesourcery.com> <17774.7608.862541.696058@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> <200611301031.07625.vladimir@codesourcery.com> <200611291215.21876.vladimir@codesourcery.com> <200611291715.05247.vladimir@codesourcery.com> <20061129142435.GD29365@nevyn.them.org> <200611291741.13617.vladimir@codesourcery.com>
On Wed, Nov 29, 2006 at 05:41:13PM +0300, Vladimir Prus wrote:
> +# Creates varobj named NAME for EXPRESSION.
> +# Name cannot be "-".
> +proc mi_create_varobj { name expression } {
> +# Updates varobj named NAME and checks that all varobjs in EXPECTED
> +# are reported as updated, and no other varobj is updated.
> +# Assumes that no varobj is out of scope and that no varobj changes
> +# types.
> +proc mi_varobj_update { name expected } {
> +proc mi_check_varobj_value { name value } {
I would recommend giving these an argument for the test name, as some
of the other helper functions do. Otherwise, if you call them twice in
a row with the same arguments (which your test does) then you've got
two tests with the same name.
On Thu, Nov 30, 2006 at 10:31:07AM +0300, Vladimir Prus wrote:
> > * gdb.mi/mi-cpp.cpp: New file.
> >
> > gdb.mi/mi-var-cp.exp?
> > gdb.mi/mi-var-cp.cc?
> >
> > Its for variable objects, and for consistency. The testsuite has the
> > directory gdb.cp and it's populated with *.cc files
>
> I've no problems with 'cp' and '.cc'. I don't think that '-var-' is good --
> now, there is just single MI test dealing with C++, so I want a testcase that
> will accumulate all C++ specific things, not necessary related to variable
> objects. But I don't care much.
I'd rather keep varobj tests easily identifiable; please use Nick's
suggestions.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery