Re: [PATCH][gdb/testsuite] Add -cooked pattern flag to gdb_test_multiple

[Andrew Burgess <andrew.burgess@embecosm.com>]

* Tom de Vries <tdevries@suse.de> [2019-10-06 08:37:31 +0200]:

> On 05-10-19 17:38, Andrew Burgess wrote:
> > * Tom de Vries <tdevries@suse.de> [2019-10-05 08:05:03 +0200]:
> > 
> >> [ was: Re: [PATCH][gdb/testsuite] Introduce gdb_test_ext ]
> >>
> >> On 19-09-19 21:24, Andrew Burgess wrote:
> >>> On further thought, I actually think there's no need for an extra
> >>> function at all, we can get all the benefit (as I see it) by possibly
> >>> updating gdb_test_multiple.  I'm travelling right now so can't code
> >>> this up, but I think a solution that does something like this:
> >>>
> >>>      gdb_test_multiple "command" "test name" {
> >>>        -re "full regexp here$gdb_prompt" {
> >>>          pass $gdb_test_multiple_name
> >>>        }
> >>>        -output "pattern without prompt" {
> >>>          fail $gdb_test_multiple_name
> >>>        }
> >>>      }
> >>>
> >>> So using '-re' and '-output' to specialise the behaviour of
> >>> gdb_test_multiple, and adding in the $gdb_test_multiple_name variable.
> >>>
> >>> When I get back to my desk I'll try to code this up.
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I took a stab at this. I'm not sure about the naming though.
> >>
> >> For the pattern flag I used the name -cooked. Perhaps -wrap is better?
> >> Any better suggestions?
> >>
> >> I used gdb_test_multiple_message (using the 'message' postfix because it
> >> matched the name of the gdb_test_multiple argument) for the convenience
> >> variable, but it's a tad long, perhaps we could abbreviate to
> >> 'gtm_message'?
> > 
> > This duplicates work in this patch:
> > 
> >   https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2019-10/msg00023.html
> > 
> 
> I see, that's unfortunate. [ FWIW, it would have helped me if you would
> have submitted continuing this thread, or cc-ed me on the new thread, or
> mentioned the new thread at this thread. ]
> 
> > I was just about to merge that patch, but I'll leave it for a couple
> > of days in case you'd like to provide feedback.
> > 
> > Pedro's suggestion, which I was going to adopt was 'gdb_test_name'.
> 
> OK, I'll take a look and follow up at the new thread if I have any comments.

Apologies, I'll try to do better next time.

I have now pushed the gdb_test_name patch.

Thanks,
Andrew