[PATCH][gdb/testsuite] Rewrite catch-follow-exec.exp
Tom de Vries
tdevries@suse.de
Wed Oct 24 11:47:00 GMT 2018
On 10/24/18 1:37 AM, Simon Marchi wrote:
> On 2018-10-23 6:38 p.m., Tom de Vries wrote:
>> On 10/23/18 11:05 PM, Tom de Vries wrote:
>>> On 10/23/18 11:04 PM, Simon Marchi wrote:
>>>> On 2018-10-15 3:54 p.m., Tom de Vries wrote:
>>>>>> Just wondering. Would it make life easier if we fixed PR 23368, which
>>>>>> is the reason we have to do the test in an unnatural way?
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes.
>>>>
>>>> Hi Tom,
>>>>
>>>> PR 23368 should be fixed now. Do you plan on updating catch-follow-exec.exp
>>>> to be written in a more standard way?
>>>
>>> Sure, will do.
>>
>> How does this look?
>
> Hi Tom,
>
> Thanks for looking into this so quickly.
And thanks for the quick review.
> I have some superficial suggestions that
> can help shorten the test a bit and make it more readable (some of them can be personal
> preference though...).
>
> When the test name is omitted, it defaults to the command. So instead of
>
> gdb_test "catch exec" \
> {Catchpoint [0-9][0-9]* \(exec\)} \
> "catch exec"
>
> You can write
>
> gdb_test "catch exec" {Catchpoint [0-9][0-9]* \(exec\)}
>
> and the test name will be "catch exec".
Done.
> Instead of [0-9][0-9]*, I am
> pretty sure you can use [0-9]+,
Done.
> or $decimal, which is provided by DejaGnu
> (/usr/share/dejagnu/runtest.exp):
>
> 101: set decimal "\[0-9\]+"
>
> Except in the {} string, $decimal won't work, because it won't get
> substituted.
Indeed. I prefer the {} quoting over "" quoting if that means less
escaping, so I went with {} here.
>
> For this:
>
> gdb_test "set follow-exec-mode new" \
> "" \
> "set follow-exec-mode new"
>
> You can use
>
> gdb_test_no_output "set follow-exec-mode new"
>
Done.
> (again, omitting the test name makes it default to the command)
>
> I'd suggest replacing
>
> gdb_test_multiple "info prog" "info prog" {
> -i "$gdb_spawn_id" eof {
> fail "info prog"
> }
> -i "$gdb_spawn_id" "No selected thread\." {
> pass "info prog"
> }
> }
>
> with the simpler
>
> gdb_test "info prog" "No selected thread."
>
> If GDB crashes as it did before your fix, the test will be unresolved, which is
> treated the same as a FAIL.
Done.
> While at it, could you update the comment at the top of the file, which currently
> says:
>
> # Check whether finish respects the print pretty user setting when printing the
> # function result.
>
Done.
Also, I realized that by using runto_main at the start, I could replace
gdb_run_cmd/gdb_expect with a regular gdb_test continue.
Committed as attached.
Thanks,
- Tom
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 0001-gdb-testsuite-Rewrite-catch-follow-exec.exp-using-gdb_test.patch
Type: text/x-patch
Size: 3223 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-patches/attachments/20181024/1f4ea586/attachment.bin>
More information about the Gdb-patches
mailing list