This is the mail archive of the
gdb@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: Moving sizeof.exp:get_sizeof() in lib/gdb.exp
- To: Stephane Carrez <Stephane dot Carrez at worldnet dot fr>
- Subject: Re: Moving sizeof.exp:get_sizeof() in lib/gdb.exp
- From: Fernando Nasser <fnasser at redhat dot com>
- Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2001 22:37:35 -0400
- CC: Andrew Cagney <ac131313 at cygnus dot com>, gdb at sources dot redhat dot com
- Organization: Red Hat Canada
- References: <3B07AFCF.211DC3BF@worldnet.fr> <3B1E4253.4030801@cygnus.com> <3B515C7B.D7C1D0D2@worldnet.fr>
Stephane Carrez wrote:
>
> Hi Andrew and Fernando,
>
> For the following patchs:
>
> [RFA]: Fix gdb.base/long_long.exp for targets with 2-byte pointers
I understand why you need this here...
> [RFA]: Fix gdb.base/remote for embedded targets (HC11)
... but not here. Are you sure this second one is related?
>
> Andrew suggested to use the `sizeof.exp:get_sizeof()' procedure.
>
> Rather than duplicating this procedure in several .exp file, would you
> agree to put it in lib/gdb.exp?
>
> I can submit a patch if this looks reasonable.
>
> Stephane
I think Andrew meat "do like" sizeof.exp:get_sizeof().... We usually
either pass or fail after we send commands to GDB so we know if
something (and what) went wrong.
Moving sizeof.exp:get_sizeof() to gdb.exp would litter that file even
more (I am already thinking of taking some time to reorganize it). It
would also leave the sizeof.exp a little bit orphan of it. Also,
someone can easily misuse it and generate duplicate test ids.
Your patch to long_long.exp is almost fine -- just make your test for
setting "sizeof_ptr" a little bit more robust.
Regards,
Fernando
P.S.: Have you ever resubmitted the patch for remote.exp or answered
Andrew's concerns on why you do not always "runto_main"?
--
Fernando Nasser
Red Hat Canada Ltd. E-Mail: fnasser@redhat.com
2323 Yonge Street, Suite #300
Toronto, Ontario M4P 2C9