Re: [PATCH] Add CTF support to GDB [5] Add test for CTF function

[Yao Qi <yao at codesourcery dot com>]

On 01/18/2013 09:22 AM, Hui Zhu wrote:
> > What is the error?  'remote_exec host' has been used in some places in gdb
> > >testsuite so it should work well.  The one-line statement below works with
> > >combinations of {remote-host, local-host} x {babeltrace installed,
> > >babeltrace not installed}
> ERROR: tcl error sourcing ../../../gdb/gdb/testsuite/gdb.trace/ctf.exp.
> ERROR: bad spawn_id (process died earlier?)
>
> This is what I got.

Looks Tom encountered this error before and it was discussed here 
<http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2012-11/msg00310.html>

I think you get an error in this line
  remote_exec host "babeltrace $ctfdir < /dev/null" "" ""  "output"

as mentioned in the link above, this line should work,

  remote_exec host "babeltrace $ctfdir < /dev/null" "" "/dev/null" 
"output"

or

  remote_exec host "babeltrace $ctfdir" "" "/dev/null"  "output"

This approach is used in proc run in 
gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/gnu-debugdata.exp.

> > >
> > >   set ctfdir "foo"
> > >   set status [remote_exec host "babeltrace $ctfdir < /dev/null"]
> > >   verbose -log "status\[0\] ([lindex $status 0])"
> > >   verbose -log "status\[1\] ([lindex $status 1])"
> > >
> > >1) babeltrace installed (local-host and remote-host).  We'll get,
> > >status[0] (1)
> > >status[1] ([error] opening trace "foo" for reading.
> > >
> > >2) babeltrace not installed, local-host.  We'll get,
> > >status[0] (-1)
> > >status[1] (spawn failed)
> > >
> > >3) babeltrace not installed, remote-host.  We'll get,
> > >status[0] (1)
> > >status[1] (sh: babeltrace: command not found)
> > >
> > >We can match 'status[1]' to know the different results of executing
> > >'babeltrace' on host.
> > >
> > >P.S.  I am not good at tcl/expect, so I may miss something.
> Thanks.  I am very clear about this way.  Do you mind I keep current
> way that I just used?

If the existing method to fix 'remote_exec host' errors (mentioned 
above) still doesn't work, I don't mind using your approach, although I 
didn't read it carefully.  Or we can skip it in remote host?  I have no 
comments on this patch.

I am not the maintainer to approve or reject the patches, and all my 
comments are optional.  Please feel free to "cherry-pick" useful ones.

--
Yao (éå)