Re: [PATCH] quoting curly braces in call-rt-st

[Michael Elizabeth Chastain <chastain at cygnus dot com>]

I think the patterns are breaking now because a different person is
running them in a different environment -- specifically, with a different
version of 'expect'.  I always use /usr/progressive/bin/expect
on every platform.  I'm not sure what MichaelS is using; it depends
on his path.

This means our test harness machinery is vulnerable and fragile.
That's not good.  :(

I did some grepping:

  % cd /horton/chastain/fsf/log
  % grep -r 'FAIL.*call-rt-st.exp' *

My only FAIL's or XFAIL's are due to that new "procfs" message.

> For what its worth I was having fun running expect on Red Hat 7.x. 
> Zapping the expect built from CVS so that the pre-installed expect was 
> used mysteriously eliminated the problem.

That's weird because I get *more* fails when I use /usr/bin/expect!

Do you have /usr/progressive/bin in your path in front of /usr/bin?

BTW, I changed my test script recently so that it creates a new directory,
explicitly copies in the version of "expect" that I want to use,
and sticks that directory at the head of $PATH.

> PS: As an aside, I know Ian Rox. is thinking of hardwiring expects 
> pattern matcher because the tcl8.0->tcl8.3 transition results in broken 
> patterns.

I saw that message going by.  I think that would help.  Tom Tromey also
says that our gdb_test stack is nasty code.

MichaelC