Re: [PATCH] gdb: use gdb_test_multiple in gdb_breakpoint

[Simon Marchi <simon.marchi@polymtl.ca>]

On 1/10/23 10:33, Pedro Alves wrote:
> On 2023-01-05 4:28 p.m., Simon Marchi via Gdb-patches wrote:
> 
>> ---
>>  gdb/testsuite/lib/gdb.exp | 6 ++++++
>>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/gdb/testsuite/lib/gdb.exp b/gdb/testsuite/lib/gdb.exp
>> index e17eace4cb13..af538e5c8fbd 100644
>> --- a/gdb/testsuite/lib/gdb.exp
>> +++ b/gdb/testsuite/lib/gdb.exp
>> @@ -657,6 +657,12 @@ proc gdb_breakpoint { linespec args } {
>>                 send_gdb "$pending_response\n"
>>                 exp_continue
>>         }
>> +       -re "$gdb_prompt $" {
>> +           if { $print_fail } {
>> +               fail $test_name
>> +           }
>> +           return 0
>> +       }
>>      }
> 
> The other removed "-re" cases also considered $print_fail, so if their replacement
> inside gdb_test_multiple is hit, they'll produce a FAIL.  Was that intended?
> Should we instead add a "-nofail" option to gdb_test / gdb_test_multiple ?

Good point, this is a change in behavior.  Does this change cause you an
unexpected FAIL in practice?  I was actually planning on removing that
message / no-message option to gdb_breakpoint [1] to simplify it.  I
don't see any use for the current behavior, I'd rather have it log a
test result all the time.  I can kind of see when that would maybe be
useful: if you wanted to set a breakpoint, and it could legitimately not
work (you could do something with gdb_breakpoint's return value).  But
you could also use the break command directly, like many places do
already, so it's not really needed.  Anyway, all of this to say that I
could fix what you pointed out by pruning / simplifying code rather than
adding more.

Simon

[1] https://review.lttng.org/c/binutils-gdb/+/7158/6