Re: [patch] gdb.c++/local.exp: add pr numbers

[Michael Elizabeth Chastain <mec at shout dot net>]

Kevin Buettner asks:
> What happens as the bugs are fixed?  Do we then take the PR numbers
> out?

That brings up a good issue.

The test code that I have right now is resilient to this.  Viz:

  send_gdb "foo ..."
  gdb_expect {
    -re "bar\r\n$gdb_prompt $" {
      pass "foo"
    }
    -re "bletch\r\n$gdb_prompt $" {
      # setup_kfail "gnats:gdb/NNN"
      fail "foo (gnats:gdb/NNN)"
    }
    -re ".*$gdb_prompt $" {
      fail "foo"
    }
    timeout {
      fail "foo (timeout)"
    }

"bar" is a good response.  "bletch" is a particular known bad response.
So as long as gdb responds with "bletch", it will be a FAIL
(soon to be a KFAIL).

When gdb starts responding with "bar", a good response, the test will PASS.

There is no need to remove the case for "bletch" for a long time.
Eventually someone will do a cleanup pass and notice that the bug for
"bletch" got fixed 2 years ago.  It's never dangerous to remove the
"bletch" case because that will just give the ordinary ".*" FAIL again.

I was thinking about this today.  The real issue is where to represent
information about known failures.  The bug database holds one view of
this information, and now we are putting it into the test scripts as well,
via KFAIL.  That means significantly more activity in the test scripts.

Michael C