This is the mail archive of the gdb-patches@sourceware.org mailing list for the GDB project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [RFA] completer test [was Re: [RFC] Cleanup for make_source_files_completion_list]


On 05/15/2013 03:33 PM, Sergio Durigan Junior wrote:
Wouldn't it be better to use the "complete" command?  Here is what I see
when I use it:

     (gdb) complete break filesy
     break filesym
     break filesym.c

Is that necessarily "better" than testing what a user would actually type? I don't know. gdb.base/completion.exp uses both forms.

Also, ISTR "send_gdb" is deprecated, and one should use
"gdb_test_multiple" instead.  WDYT?

Is send_gdb deprecated or gdb_expect? Or is their direct use discouraged?

This is the first I've heard of send_gdb being deprecated. As far as I can tell, there is no other way to directly test completion this way. I do see, though, that completion.exp uses gdb_test_multiple instead of gdb_expect... If it truly is deprecated, I would expect send_gdb to be made "private" in some way. [deprecated_send_gdb?] Or at least mentioned in lib/gdb.exp.

If there is a preference for one or the other [or an actual policy], I will certainly make necessary changes.

I'm using a similar test strategy for my explicit completion tests, which I am about to submit...

Thank you for bringing this up.

Keith


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]