This is the mail archive of the
gdb-cvs@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
[binutils-gdb] Use noncapturing subpattern/parens in gdb_test implementation
- From: Kevin Buettner <kevinb at sourceware dot org>
- To: gdb-cvs at sourceware dot org
- Date: 21 Jun 2017 21:44:22 -0000
- Subject: [binutils-gdb] Use noncapturing subpattern/parens in gdb_test implementation
https://sourceware.org/git/gitweb.cgi?p=binutils-gdb.git;h=75312ae3ab577c3a72ada54512533fec8bfae7bb
commit 75312ae3ab577c3a72ada54512533fec8bfae7bb
Author: Kevin Buettner <kevinb@redhat.com>
Date: Fri Jun 2 17:58:12 2017 -0700
Use noncapturing subpattern/parens in gdb_test implementation
This is the portion of gdb_test which performs the match against
the RE (regular expression) passed to it:
return [gdb_test_multiple $command $message {
-re "\[\r\n\]*($pattern)\[\r\n\]+$gdb_prompt $" {
if ![string match "" $message] then {
pass "$message"
}
}
In a test that I've been working on recently, I wanted to use
a backreference - that's the \1 in the the RE below:
gdb_test "info threads" \
{.*[\r\n]+\* +([0-9]+) +Thread[^\r\n]* do_something \(n=\1\) at.*}
Put into English, I wanted to make sure that the value of n passed to
do_something() is the same as the thread number shown in the "info
threads" Id column. (I've structured the test case so that this
*should* be the case.)
It didn't work though. It turned out that ($pattern) in the RE
noted above is capturing the attempted backreference. So, in this
case, the backreference does not refer to ([0-9]+) as intended, but
instead refers to ($pattern). This is wrong because it's not what I
intended, but is also wrong because, if allowed, it could only match a
string of infinite length.
This problem can be fixed by using parens for a "noncapturing
subpattern". The way that this is done, syntactically, is to use
(?:$pattern) instead of ($pattern).
My research shows that this feature has been present since tcl8.1 which
was released in 1999.
The current tcl version is 8.6 - at least that's what I have on my
machine. It appears to me that mingw uses some subversion of tcl8.4
which will also have this feature (since 8.4 > 8.1).
So it seems to me that any platform upon which we might wish to test
GDB will have a version of tcl which has this feature. That being the
case, my hope is that there won't be any objections to its use.
When I looked at the implementation of gdb_test, I wondered whether
the parens were needed at all. I've concluded that they are. In the
event that $pattern is an RE which uses alternation at the top level,
e.g. a|b, we need to make $pattern a subpattern (via parens) to limit
the extend of the alternation. I.e, we don't want the alternation to
extend to the other portions of the RE which gdb_test uses to match
potential blank lines at the beginning of the pattern or the gdb
prompt at the end.
gdb/testsuite/ChangeLog:
* gdb.exp (gdb_test): Using noncapturing parens for the $pattern
subpattern.
Diff:
---
gdb/testsuite/ChangeLog | 5 +++++
gdb/testsuite/lib/gdb.exp | 2 +-
2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/gdb/testsuite/ChangeLog b/gdb/testsuite/ChangeLog
index 5b71fec..253e229 100644
--- a/gdb/testsuite/ChangeLog
+++ b/gdb/testsuite/ChangeLog
@@ -1,3 +1,8 @@
+2017-06-21 Kevin Buettner <kevinb@redhat.com>
+
+ * gdb.exp (gdb_test): Using noncapturing parens for the $pattern
+ subpattern.
+
2017-06-19 Peter Bergner <bergner@vnet.ibm.com>
* gdb.arch/powerpc-power9.exp: Update test case for new lnia
diff --git a/gdb/testsuite/lib/gdb.exp b/gdb/testsuite/lib/gdb.exp
index a74f974..3d3eaab 100644
--- a/gdb/testsuite/lib/gdb.exp
+++ b/gdb/testsuite/lib/gdb.exp
@@ -1000,7 +1000,7 @@ proc gdb_test { args } {
}
return [gdb_test_multiple $command $message {
- -re "\[\r\n\]*($pattern)\[\r\n\]+$gdb_prompt $" {
+ -re "\[\r\n\]*(?:$pattern)\[\r\n\]+$gdb_prompt $" {
if ![string match "" $message] then {
pass "$message"
}