Re: [PATCH] gdb/testsuite: modernize gdb.base/maint.exp

[Bruno Larsen <blarsen@redhat.com>]

On 6/24/22 14:51, Keith Seitz wrote:
> On 6/24/22 08:22, Pedro Alves wrote:
>> On 2022-06-21 16:52, Andrew Burgess via Gdb-patches wrote:
>>>> +                pass "$test_name 1"
>>> You could use:
>>>
>>>      pass "$gdb_test_name, pattern 1"
>>>
>>> here, and similar, with ', pattern 2' for the next 'pass' call.
>>>
>>
>> How about
>>
>>     pass "$gdb_test_name (pattern 1)"
>>
>>     pass "$gdb_test_name (pattern 2)"
>>
>> ?
>>
>> The idea being that the text in the trail parens is not considered part of the
>> test name, so when comparing gdb.sum files and matching test names, that parens part
>> should be discarded.  Whether this test passes with pattern 1 or 2 should make
>> no difference IIUC, thus I think it should not be part of the (part that counts
>> as real) test name.
>>
> I think it no surprise that I disdain this " (whatever)" idiom in test names. There
> is also a long-standing guideline in the wiki against this:
> 
> https://sourceware.org/gdb/wiki/GDBTestcaseCookbook#Do_not_use_.22tail_parentheses.22_on_test_messages
> 
> Has there been some unannounced, sekrit change to this policy?
> 
> How is, e.g., "- pattern 1" any less desirable/informative than "(pattern 1)"?

Taking this further, knowing which pattern was matched is actually useful in this situation?

When first making the change, I just blindly applied the gdb_test_multiple without seeing what
was going on, but looking at it again, it will just show which of the correct "spellings" GDB used
to respond to the command.

Personally, I don't see why it matters. Am I missing something?

Cheers!
Bruno Larsen

> 
> Keith
>