This is the mail archive of the 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] New testes for process record save/restore commands

Joel Brobecker wrote:
2009-10-19 Michael Snyder <>

	* 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.

OK, committed with *some* of the gdb_expects removed. I'm not entirely sure how to remove some of them, and I've no objection to anyone else banging on them. ;-)

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