This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH] mi-stack.exp
> > * gdb.mi/mi-stack.exp (test_stack_locals_listing):
> > Remove test for -stack-select-frame without arguments.
> > (test_stack_frame_listing):
> > Add test for newly implemented command -stack-info-frame.
>
> OK. Please wrap it this way:
>
> * gdb.mi/mi-stack.exp (test_stack_locals_listing): Remove test for
> -stack-select-frame without arguments.
> (test_stack_frame_listing): Add test for newly implemented command
> -stack-info-frame.
OK. (I find the log message easier to read when it fits on one line)
> > *** /home/nick/src/gdb/testsuite/gdb.mi/mi-stack.exp.~1.15.~ 2005-05-18
> > 20:18:15.000000000 +1200 ---
> > /home/nick/src/gdb/testsuite/gdb.mi/mi-stack.exp 2005-06-19
> > 18:49:18.000000000 +1200
>
> Could you see about submitting relative diffs? It doesn't really
> matter what they're relative _to_ - common is -p0 or -p1 to the top
> directory whose ChangeLog you're touching. But this is a bit awkward
> to apply.
Like below? (This is with vc-diff in Emacs)
> As an aside, if you don't mind, please check in patches all at once.
> When you check in each file separately with its own log message,
> automated tools can't reconstruct the entire change.
You mean, for example, the log message:
* mi/mi-cmd-stack.c (mi_cmd_stack_info_frame): New function.
* mi/mi-cmds.c (mi_cmds): Replace entry for -stack-info-frame.
Make it use mi_cmd_stack_info_frame
* mi/mi-cmds.h (mi_cmd_stack_info_frame): New declaration.
should appear in the individual CVS log for each of the files
mi/mi-cmd-stack.c, mi/mi-cmds.c and mi/mi-cmds.h? I thought that the
ChangeLog was there for that purpose.
Nick
2005-06-20 Nick Roberts <nickrob@snap.net.nz>
* gdb.mi/mi-stack.exp (test_stack_locals_listing): Remove test for
-stack-select-frame without arguments.
(test_stack_frame_listing): Add test for newly implemented command
-stack-info-frame.
*** mi-stack.exp 18 May 2005 20:18:15 +1200 1.15
--- mi-stack.exp 19 Jun 2005 18:49:18 +1200
***************
*** 55,60 ****
--- 55,61 ----
# -stack-list-frames
# -stack-list-frames 1 1
# -stack-list-frames 1 3
+ # -stack-info-frame
mi_gdb_test "231-stack-list-frames" \
"231\\^done,stack=\\\[frame=\{level=\"0\",addr=\"$hex\",func=\"callee4\",file=\".*basics.c\",fullname=\"${fullname_syntax}${srcfile}\",line=\"$line_callee4_body\"\},frame=\{level=\"1\",addr=\"$hex\",func=\"callee3\",.*\},frame=\{level=\"2\",addr=\"$hex\",func=\"callee2\",.*\},frame=\{level=\"3\",addr=\"$hex\",func=\"callee1\",.*\},frame=\{level=\"4\",addr=\"$hex\",func=\"main\",.*\}\\\]" \
***************
*** 69,74 ****
--- 70,79 ----
mi_gdb_test "234-stack-list-frames 1" \
"234\\^error,msg=\"mi_cmd_stack_list_frames: Usage.*FRAME_LOW FRAME_HIGH.*\"" \
"stack frame listing wrong"
+
+ mi_gdb_test "235-stack-info-frame" \
+ "235\\^done,frame=\{level=\"0\",addr=\"$hex\",func=\"callee4\",file=\".*basics.c\",fullname=\"${fullname_syntax}${srcfile}\",line=\"$line_callee4_body\"\}" \
+ "selected frame listing"
}
proc test_stack_args_listing {} {
***************
*** 187,202 ****
"232\\^done,locals=\\\[\\\]" \
"stack locals listing for new frame"
- # this should be a no-op
-
- mi_gdb_test "232-stack-select-frame" \
- "232\\^done" \
- "stack select same frame"
-
mi_gdb_test "232-stack-list-locals 1" \
"232\\^done,locals=\\\[\\\]" \
"stack locals for same frame (level 1)"
-
}
mi_runto callee4