This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PING] [RFC-v2] Use untested for macscp.exp if no macro information generated
- From: Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com>
- To: "Pierre Muller" <muller at ics dot u-strasbg dot fr>
- Cc: "'Daniel Jacobowitz'" <drow at false dot org>, <gdb-patches at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 18:00:14 -0700
- Subject: Re: [PING] [RFC-v2] Use untested for macscp.exp if no macro information generated
- References: <011801c92a03$4b71afa0$e2550ee0$@u-strasbg.fr> <m38wsxvin8.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <001401c92af1$cf8821e0$6e9865a0$@u-strasbg.fr> <004a01c97f96$637bced0$2a736c70$@u-strasbg.fr> <000001c9814b$919b63a0$b4d22ae0$@u-strasbg.fr> <20090201182834.GE4597@caradoc.them.org> <000801c9860c$d5dc8ba0$8195a2e0$@u-strasbg.fr> <000001c9921b$cf82d500$6e887f00$@u-strasbg.fr>
- Reply-to: tromey at redhat dot com
>>>>> "Pierre" == Pierre Muller <muller@ics.u-strasbg.fr> writes:
Pierre> I didn't get any feedback on this one.
Sorry about that.
Pierre> Should I resend it as a RFA?
No need :)
>> FAIL: gdb.base/macscp.exp: info macro WHERE after `list main'
>> (undefined)
It seems to me that it should be possible to check some macro
expansion without running a "test", and thus not having any FAILs show
up in the log.
Is this too hard?
E.g., I was thinking, send "macro expand FIFTY_SEVEN", and if you
don't get "= 57" back, call untested and return.
Tom