From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gproxy2-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com (gproxy2-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com [69.89.18.3]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BEB593857836 for ; Wed, 18 May 2022 20:34:52 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org BEB593857836 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=tromey.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=tromey.com Received: from cmgw12.mail.unifiedlayer.com (unknown [10.0.90.127]) by progateway4.mail.pro1.eigbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0571F10047BB9 for ; Wed, 18 May 2022 20:34:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from box5379.bluehost.com ([162.241.216.53]) by cmsmtp with ESMTP id rQNfnb3m7wPf0rQNfnBlYV; Wed, 18 May 2022 20:34:52 +0000 X-Authority-Reason: nr=8 X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.4 cv=VLgYI/DX c=1 sm=1 tr=0 ts=6285586c a=ApxJNpeYhEAb1aAlGBBbmA==:117 a=ApxJNpeYhEAb1aAlGBBbmA==:17 a=dLZJa+xiwSxG16/P+YVxDGlgEgI=:19 a=oZkIemNP1mAA:10:nop_rcvd_month_year a=Qbun_eYptAEA:10:endurance_base64_authed_username_1 a=T_Alst9gAAAA:8 a=HjDG1KWkbpJn_B1CnsUA:9 a=DvZ5ixILWSEuw56YIEpp:22 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tromey.com; s=default; h=Content-Type:MIME-Version:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:Date:References :Subject:Cc:To:From:Sender:Reply-To:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID: Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc :Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe: List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=ievTCbV3cdRCx1liQoiByGIU0I1D/yOu+X7WnZlgFeM=; b=SvEOHjGHxvzDIij7PIaRmjBlzY ciL2mGirCHHSQEItT4KwzOsqYTlPEcf3kNksRCedttYITxfOaaxUBN96miwN/Mu3aqsh8qSai6ZzF jK7FN1oiHes9IftNI7L4VDfB0; Received: from 71-211-158-194.hlrn.qwest.net ([71.211.158.194]:34890 helo=prentzel) by box5379.bluehost.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.2) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1nrQNf-001FNd-0p; Wed, 18 May 2022 14:34:51 -0600 From: Tom Tromey To: Pedro Alves Cc: Tom de Vries , Tom Tromey , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [pushed] Support -prompt and -lbl in gdb_test (Re: [PATCH 5/5] Make gdb_test's question non-optional if specified) References: <20220330192929.3161015-1-pedro@palves.net> <20220330192929.3161015-6-pedro@palves.net> <87o7zxeaa6.fsf@tromey.com> <87sfp7kc78.fsf@tromey.com> <8def622c-5396-d1e1-dfbb-a5732dd8183a@palves.net> X-Attribution: Tom Date: Wed, 18 May 2022 14:34:49 -0600 In-Reply-To: (Pedro Alves's message of "Wed, 18 May 2022 15:13:23 +0100") Message-ID: <87ee0qinpy.fsf@tromey.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - box5379.bluehost.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - sourceware.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - tromey.com X-BWhitelist: no X-Source-IP: 71.211.158.194 X-Source-L: No X-Exim-ID: 1nrQNf-001FNd-0p X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: X-Source-Sender: 71-211-158-194.hlrn.qwest.net (prentzel) [71.211.158.194]:34890 X-Source-Auth: tom+tromey.com X-Email-Count: 9 X-Source-Cap: ZWx5bnJvYmk7ZWx5bnJvYmk7Ym94NTM3OS5ibHVlaG9zdC5jb20= X-Local-Domain: yes X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3023.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, JMQ_SPF_NEUTRAL, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS, TXREP, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: gdb-patches@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 18 May 2022 20:34:53 -0000 >>>>> "Pedro" == Pedro Alves writes: Pedro> Instead of going back to how it used to be, I'm thinking of adding a new Pedro> option to gdb_test, "gdb_test -nopass". The advantage of this approach is Pedro> that we always have a message for the FAIL case this way, and, it's more Pedro> explicit. I like this a lot more than the current approach. Tom