This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: RFA: patch to fix gdb/1680
- From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at false dot org>
- To: Michael Elizabeth Chastain <mec dot gnu at mindspring dot com>
- Cc: cagney at gnu dot org, gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com, jimb at redhat dot com,keiths at redhat dot com
- Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2004 16:33:04 -0400
- Subject: Re: RFA: patch to fix gdb/1680
- References: <20040618202524.608064B104@berman.michael-chastain.com>
On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 04:25:24PM -0400, Michael Chastain wrote:
> drow> I prefer to solve the mystery instead.
>
> We can do both. I don't want to have 16 ERROR's in my face while
> we are figuring this out.
>
> drow> Presumably this version of TCL does not put special meaning on
> drow> {string}, but does on {NUMBER}, as has become fashionable for regex
> drow> engines.
>
> Aw, foo! That's what's different about gdb.cp/*.exp. All the examples
> in gdb.cp/*.exp are like:
>
> { x = 100, y = 101 }
>
> Both the sourceware version of TCL (which is based on 8.4.1) and
> the version I use of TCL (8.4.6) have code for {NUMBER} and
> {NUMBER, NUMBER} modifiers.
>
> I suspect there's some difference happening at the expect level
> (5.26 versus 5.41).
>
> Time to dive into the TCL source and throw in some fprintf's and stuff.
The correct change is to use { \{ } } or " \\{ } "; it is harmless but
still incorrect where we use "\{ }" or "{ }" in the C++ testsuite.
I imagine it depends on the guts of the regex matcher whether " { 2, 0,
4 }" throws an error.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz