This is the mail archive of the
gdb@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: RFC: Additional testsuite alternative
On Thu, Sep 26, 2002 at 04:20:52PM -0400, Fernando Nasser wrote:
> Daniel,
>
> I don't think something like this would be of general use. The .exp
> files have the full power of a script language and nothing can beat
> that. Compiler tests are pretty much different from debugger tests,
> because debuggers are interactive beasts.
>
> But as a special harness to drive C++ tests I think it is a good idea.
> The majority of tests deal with checking for some formatted output of a
> C++ construct and maybe the full power of scripting is not needed.
> Maybe it can even be adapted to other languages where what is being
> tested is of similar nature. There is a precedent already in that the
> gdbtk tests use their own spec files (.test).
>
> Anyway, I suggest that you do not try and make it too general, but just
> something that is capable of simplifying these types of C++ tests. Use
> .exp for the non-trivial tests.
OK... I may just use it for type formatting for now, then. That's and
simple expression printing is what it is best suited for.
> One more question: You still need a minimum .exp file, I believe, which
> is what runtest will find and try to run. It is also part of what
> identify tests in the results and so one.
Yeah. I've been just using the harness as the .exp file; I'll keep it
that way for now unless this is needed somewhere else.
I'll submit the harness in a couple of days then.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer