Re: [PATCH 1/2] gdb: only allow one of thread or task on breakpoints or watchpoints

[Andrew Burgess <aburgess@redhat.com>]

Pedro Alves <pedro@palves.net> writes:

> On 2023-02-08 3:16 p.m., Andrew Burgess via Gdb-patches wrote:
>
>> @@ -57,8 +77,67 @@ gdb_test "info breakpoints" "foo.adb:${decimal}\r\n\\s+stop only in task 1" \
>>  # extract its number.
>>  gdb_breakpoint "break_me task 3" message
>>  set bp_number [get_integer_valueof "\$bpnum" -1]
>> -if {$bp_number < 0} {
>> -    return
>> +gdb_assert { $bp_number > 0 } "check for a valid breakpoint number"
>> +
>> +# Test the Python API for the breakpoint task attribute.
>> +if {[allow_python_tests]} {
>> +    gdb_test_no_output "python bp = gdb.breakpoints()\[$bp_number - 1\]"
>
> AFAICS, this leaks the $bp_number number to gdb.sum.  Typically we'll avoid it, by
> writing an explicit test message, sometimes by using "\$bp_number" in the 
> test message so that "$bp_number" is written literally instead of the expanded
> number.  Like:
>
>    gdb_test_no_output \
>      "python bp = gdb.breakpoints()\[$bp_number - 1\]" \
>      "python bp = gdb.breakpoints()\[\$bp_number - 1\]"
>
> but a descriptive test message would be fine too, of course.  I see now that in
> Guile below you used "get breakpoint from list":

I gave the test a more descriptive name, and pushed both patches in this
series.

Thanks,
Andrew

>
>> +
>> +    gdb_scm_test_silent_cmd "guile (define blist (breakpoints))" \
>> +	"get breakpoint list"
>> +    gdb_scm_test_silent_cmd "guile (define bp (list-ref blist (- $bp_number 1)))" \
>> +	"get breakpoint from list"
>
> Otherwise,
>
>  Approved-By: Pedro Alves <pedro@palves.net>