This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
RE: [PATCH] testsuite: Update py-mi-objfile to expect console format print
- From: Catalin-Dan Udma <catalin-dan dot udma at nxp dot com>
- To: Pedro Alves <palves at redhat dot com>, Catalin Udma <catalin dot udma at freescale dot com>, "gdb-patches at sourceware dot org" <gdb-patches at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2016 11:45:56 +0000
- Subject: RE: [PATCH] testsuite: Update py-mi-objfile to expect console format print
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- Authentication-results: redhat.com; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;redhat.com; dmarc=none action=none header.from=nxp.com;
- References: <1459851290-13123-1-git-send-email-catalin dot udma at freescale dot com> <57039A9E dot 4010408 at redhat dot com>
- Spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
- Spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:23
> On 04/05/2016 11:14 AM, Catalin Udma wrote:
> > --- a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.python/py-mi-objfile-gdb.py
> > +++ b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.python/py-mi-objfile-gdb.py
> > @@ -24,4 +24,4 @@ import gdb
> > gdb.execute("set width 101", to_string=True)
> > # And finally a command that will use the original MI stream, which in a
> > # buggy gdb will use just-freed data.
> > -gdb.execute("list")
> > +gdb.execute("list main")
>
> Do the comments in the test still make sense?
> From the comment, sounds like the test might no longer be covering
> what it intended? I.e. do we "use the original MI stream" ?
>
> Thanks,
> Pedro Alves
[Catalin Udma] Indeed, the original crash is no longer reproducible: I manually reverted the fixes
for that crash (gdb/cli/cli-logging.c, gdb/mi/mi-out.c) and the crash is not reproducible anymore
when running py-mi-objfile.exp.
It reproduces if I revert also this patch " python: Use console format for output of gdb.execute command"
Updating the comments would be enough and let the test validate the same scenario?
"+# And finally a command that will use the console stream without redirection" ?