This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [RFA] New testes for process record save/restore commands
- From: Joel Brobecker <brobecker at adacore dot com>
- To: Michael Snyder <msnyder at vmware dot com>
- Cc: "gdb-patches at sourceware dot org" <gdb-patches at sourceware dot org>, Hui Zhu <teawater at gmail dot com>
- Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 22:03:22 +0200
- Subject: Re: [RFA] New testes for process record save/restore commands
- References: <4ADCC1CE.firstname.lastname@example.org>
> 2009-10-19 Michael Snyder <email@example.com>
> * gdb.reverse/break-precsave.exp: New test.
> * gdb.reverse/consecutive-precsave.exp: Ditto.
> * gdb.reverse/finish-precsave.exp: Ditto.
> * gdb.reverse/i386-precsave.exp: Ditto.
> * gdb.reverse/machinestate-precsave.exp: Ditto.
> * gdb.reverse/sigall-precsave.exp: Ditto.
> * gdb.reverse/solilb-precsave.exp: Ditto.
> * gdb.reverse/step-precsave.exp: Ditto.
> * gdb.reverse/until-precsave.exp: Ditto.
> * gdb.reverse/watch-precsave.exp: Ditto.
I only quickly scanned the files, since they are essentially duplicates
of already-existing testcases. I didn't expect to find anything, but
I actually did notice a couple of things:
- Use of send_gdb/gdb_expect which should be replaced by gdb_test_multiple
(too bad we didn't catch those in the current ones when the testcases
were checked in)
- unnecessary "return 0" at the end of the script.
I think we shouldn't put anything unnecessary in these files, as we tend
to forget why we put them, and the next developer who, like me, writes
testcase by copy/paste, will repeat the pattern because he's afraid of
breaking something otherwise.