On 16-11-29 10:58 AM, Luis Machado wrote:
+if ![supports_reverse] {
Add an explicit untested call here?
Right, adding:
untested "reverse debugging not supported"
+proc test_record_while_running { } {
+ gdb_test "continue &" "Continuing."
+ gdb_test "record" "Can't enable record while the program is running. Use \"interrupt\" to stop it first."
I have mixed feelings with the above test names. I'd know what to look
for in case of failure, but more explicit test names wouldn't hurt for a
quick inspection of the logs.
"move thread"
"switch record on when thread is moving"
Feel free to pick it up though. Not a hard requirement.
You are right, it helps when reading the test. The command by itself doesn't
convey why we are using doing that command. How about:
proc_with_prefix test_record_while_running { } {
gdb_test "continue &" "Continuing." "resume target"
gdb_test \
"record" \
"Can't enable record while the program is running. Use \"interrupt\" to stop it first." \
"switch record on while target is running"
}
PASS: gdb.reverse/record-while-running.exp: test_record_while_running: resume target
PASS: gdb.reverse/record-while-running.exp: test_record_while_running: switch record on while target is running
I added proc_with_prefix, I think it can help by giving some context to the messages.
Thanks for the feedback,
Simon