This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [patch] gdb.c++/pr-1023.exp: new test script
- From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at mvista dot com>
- To: gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 13:36:45 -0500
- Subject: Re: [patch] gdb.c++/pr-1023.exp: new test script
- References: <200302031805.h13I5qA28182@duracef.shout.net>
On Mon, Feb 03, 2003 at 12:05:52PM -0600, Michael Elizabeth Chastain wrote:
> This is a new C++ test script. It demonstrates the bug in PR gdb/1023.
> This bug is still present in gdb HEAD%20030201, so the test script
> has a KFAIL arm in it.
>
> Testing: native i686-pc-linux-gnu, gcc v2 and v3, dwarf-2 and stabs+.
> All results are either PASS or KFAIL. As the PR says, it KFAIL's with
> gcc 2.95.3 dwarf-2.
>
> I will wait 24 hours and then commit this.
>
> This is a simple test script, so it will be a good candidate for the
> new gdb_test_multiple syntax. *After* committing this nice working
> version, I will be open to gdb_test_multiple experiments.
Sounds good. By the way:
> setup_kfail "gdb/1023"
>
> send_gdb "break myClass::performBlocking\n"
> gdb_expect {
> -re "Breakpoint $decimal at $hex: file .*$srcfile, line 12.*$gdb_prompt $" {
> pass "break myClass::performBlocking"
> }
> -re "the class myClass does not have any method named performBlocking.*$gdb_prompt $" {
> # fails with gcc 2.95.3 -gstabs+, native i686-pc-linux-gnu
> # -- chastain 2003-02-03
> kfail "gdb/1023" "break myClass::performBlocking"
> }
You should be using either setup_kfail or an explicit kfail, but not
both. I think you meant the latter in this case.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer