This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [RFC] Fixing gdb.base/completion.exp (PR testsuite/12649)
- From: Pedro Alves <pedro at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Joel Brobecker <brobecker at adacore dot com>
- Cc: gdb-patches at sourceware dot org, Jan Kratochvil <jan dot kratochvil at redhat dot com>, Marek Polacek <mpolacek at redhat dot com>
- Date: Mon, 2 May 2011 16:49:44 +0100
- Subject: Re: [RFC] Fixing gdb.base/completion.exp (PR testsuite/12649)
- References: <4DB82F26.30801@redhat.com> <201105021630.04082.pedro@codesourcery.com> <20110502154345.GF2489@adacore.com>
On Monday 02 May 2011 16:43:45, Joel Brobecker wrote:
> My 2 cents...
>
> > The "\t" method of completion interacts with readline, the
> > "complete command" method doesn't. I think it's useful and
> > important to test the "\t" version, especially since it's
> > what CLI users are using.
>
> I agree. But at the same time, do we need to only test completion
> using this approach only (I initially suggested that we keep 1 test
> that uses this approach, and do the rest with gdb_test "complete ...")?
> Incidentally, the same argument can be made for testing the "complete"
> command as well, as this is what IDEs use.
Note there are "complete foo" tests already in the testfile,
so we already cover both variants, though it's not systematic.
> So, perhaps one possible evolution of the testcase is to write a
> procedure that verifies both forms of completion...
Yes, agreed. I suggested that at least twice in this thread. :-)
--
Pedro Alves