Re: [PATCH] Fix gdb.cp/typeid.exp failures for ppc64

[Luis Machado <lgustavo@codesourcery.com>]

On 12/01/2014 06:30 PM, Sergio Durigan Junior wrote:
> On Monday, December 01 2014, Luis Machado wrote:
>
>> This test assumes the typeid symbols are always available before
>> actually starting the inferior, which is not true for architectures
>> that place such symbols under relocatable sections.
>>
>> The following patch fixes this by conditionalizing the execution of
>> such tests on the accessibility of the typeid symbols before the
>> inferior is running.
>>
>> Regression-tested on ppc32/64.
>
> Hey Luis!
>
> Thanks for the patch.  Just a somewhat minor comment.
>
>> diff --git a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.cp/typeid.exp b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.cp/typeid.exp
>> index 9963a8a..7469b2b 100644
>> --- a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.cp/typeid.exp
>> +++ b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.cp/typeid.exp
>> @@ -25,20 +25,35 @@ if {[prepare_for_testing $testfile.exp $testfile $srcfile {debug c++}]} {
>>
>>   proc do_typeid_tests {started} {
>>       global hex
>> +    global gdb_prompt
>> +    set symbol_found 1
>>
>> -    # We might see the standard type or gdb's internal type.
>> -    set type_re "(std::type_info|struct gdb_gnu_v3_type_info)"
>> +    # Try to access one of the symbols to make sure it is available.  Some
>> +    # architectures put the symbols on relocatable sections, which means
>> +    # they will not be accessible before the inferior is running.
>> +    send_gdb "print 'typeinfo for int'\n"
>> +    gdb_expect {
>> +	-re "No symbol \"typeinfo for int\" in current context.*$gdb_prompt" {
>> +	    set symbol_found 0
>> +	}
>> +	-re ".*$gdb_prompt" {
>> +	}
>> +    }
>
> Any particular reason for not using gdb_test_multiple here (and
> everywhere else)?  This "send_gdb...gdb_expect" dialect is not used
> anymore in the testsuite, AFAIR.
>

It looks a bit more natural when you are aiming at tests that should not 
expose PASS/FAIL. But gdb_test_multiple can be used that way as well, 
though with a somewhat strange empty testname parameter.

Works the same though.

I've updated the patch and fixed a previous gotcha in the logic.

Ok?