Bob Rossi wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Andrew, I've mailed you personally cause I think you originally wrote
> the comment below,
>
> I've got the entire testsuite passing with the new syntax checker for
> the MI output. However, I noticed the testcase mi?-console.exp has this,
See my reply to your patch. I suspect we ``violently agree with each
other''. The comment, written in ~'98, reflects the position taken tat
that time. It's been superseeded by other events - MI clients end up
doing what I thought was "hard".
Andrew
> gdb_expect {
This is now wrong.
GDB would only produce this when connected to a remote target. That
code has been superseeded by remote file I/O.
> -re "@\"H\"\r\n.*@\"e\"\r\n.*@\"l\"\r\n.*@\"l\"\r\n.*@\"o\"\r\n.*@\" \"\r\n.*@\"\\\\\\\\\"\r\n.*@\"\\\\\"\"\r\n.*@\"!\"\r\n.*@\"\\\\r\"\r\n.*@\"\\\\n\"\r\n" {
> pass "Hello message"
> }
This is now right (but must come from the PTY).
> -re "Hello" {
>
> # Probably a native system where GDB doesn't have direct
> # control over the inferior console.
> # For this to work, GDB would need to run the inferior process
> # under a PTY and then use the even-loops ability to wait on
> # multiple event sources to channel the output back through the
> # MI.
>
> kfail "gdb/623" "Hello message"
> }
> timeout {
> fail "Hello message (timeout)"
> }
> }
>
> In particular, I don't know what the first regular expression is, and
> it's the one that allows for a "pass". What is it trying to match?
>
> When I run this testcase, I get,
> KFAIL: gdb.mi/mi-console.exp: Hello message (PRMS: gdb/623)
>
> The output of the inferior is simply "Hello \"!\r\n". Since I have the
> testsuite set up so the inferior output is redirected to it's own pty,
> would it be fine for me to match the expected output with a PASS?
>
> Or is this a kfail for some reason I just don't understand?
Andrew