From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5753 invoked by alias); 28 Dec 2011 17:23:59 -0000 Received: (qmail 5744 invoked by uid 22791); 28 Dec 2011 17:23:57 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-vw0-f41.google.com (HELO mail-vw0-f41.google.com) (209.85.212.41) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 28 Dec 2011 17:23:44 +0000 Received: by vbbfn1 with SMTP id fn1so11651646vbb.0 for ; Wed, 28 Dec 2011 09:23:44 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.52.35.69 with SMTP id f5mr3819794vdj.29.1325093024006; Wed, 28 Dec 2011 09:23:44 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.52.35.69 with SMTP id f5mr3819784vdj.29.1325093023890; Wed, 28 Dec 2011 09:23:43 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.220.199.4 with HTTP; Wed, 28 Dec 2011 09:23:43 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20111228035045.GK23376@adacore.com> References: <20111227195924.187BF92BF6@kwai.gnat.com> <20111228035045.GK23376@adacore.com> Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2011 18:02:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RFA] Add testcase for locals identified with FUNCTION::VAR syntax. From: Doug Evans To: Joel Brobecker Cc: Hilfinger@adacore.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org X-System-Of-Record: true Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2011-12/txt/msg00876.txt.bz2 On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 7:50 PM, Joel Brobecker wrote: > Do you know where these are defined? And are there any other such > useful globals that we can use? I need to document them in the > testing cookbook, because I keep looking for them, and then > eventually redefine them over and over again... [Paul already replied, but yeah, /usr/share/dejagnu/runtest.exp.] > Thanks! > >> I notice scope.exp has similar tests. >> Would it make sense to move this there? > > Personally, I think it's fine to have a small self-contained > testcase that deals mostly with scoping vs recursion. I actually > like it better that way, but I know people may prefer it the other > way. My opinion for liking smaller testcases is that it's usually > easier to reproduce the problem: You don't have to sort through > a lot of unrelated stuff that happens before the problem occurs. I don't have a strong preference. I mostly just wanted to raise the issue. The patch is fine with me. [I'd feel uncomfortable with forcing someone to hack on scope* before cleaning it up anyway. :-)]