From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com (us-smtp-1.mimecast.com [207.211.31.81]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89451383E806 for ; Mon, 25 May 2020 14:44:24 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org 89451383E806 Received: from mail-wr1-f70.google.com (mail-wr1-f70.google.com [209.85.221.70]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-53-M9GEB2JcO0uDY3wPQ72u0Q-1; Mon, 25 May 2020 10:44:22 -0400 X-MC-Unique: M9GEB2JcO0uDY3wPQ72u0Q-1 Received: by mail-wr1-f70.google.com with SMTP id h6so7477807wrx.4 for ; Mon, 25 May 2020 07:44:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=xEwh3ihFfWHwjsFS1qThck0/o83IhagKnqVXJtY5vVg=; b=NEQ0LgpNNDME2alYtvtfmFloRqXZRLr4XYlpU0knuj31Hbtm/hj/sKIs+vpNuPyVCd ym14Sz5vq0lgW8qn7SXB63deCwNEgeCAOlW/ma1iowKokCJEQWT+LutgFk27fjO5q5pt PezeCrYqOBbErVDrD+aSkEiMIXlVtzX5O54o7flWXs7HiOnqVoK1nq3ijyZ5bmj5bw7b dK8RYIlS73MwXVQYnf3tx19iRk6BOO5RTzRZDG0ZSRB2dr7G1BjbEWKFMX32/d7TjNw4 COmxDPwKfIfIPAUyQJExFlGIi0Rm5pMQZXSQ+SJjaCqDMsmjjWzTQhhLIbZY/jMmTjT8 iQaA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531qoKcpE/hAR/A+rd/dXYBj6aO8fMqNcm62Un/qGYJaYMgx8zKn VRXyUol/Hcc2Rlsljn0x/qxIWgUzugmzdtrW99YJReVsB/UYGKg1z9hCUdU8ZWnLpA5527E/sgv vdi6yBVSiw1IcfRpclN+2DA== X-Received: by 2002:a1c:3c89:: with SMTP id j131mr6784075wma.59.1590417861428; Mon, 25 May 2020 07:44:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyudbesnWw0j4PNd970EyZ8z+UDOlhI8YNTDVLwyyYZx4E+dAphBGmOLadoxO9rK6t2acFFEw== X-Received: by 2002:a1c:3c89:: with SMTP id j131mr6784066wma.59.1590417861285; Mon, 25 May 2020 07:44:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPv6:2001:8a0:f909:7b00:2327:23ca:3e56:ef5f? ([2001:8a0:f909:7b00:2327:23ca:3e56:ef5f]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id a1sm749511wmd.28.2020.05.25.07.44.20 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 25 May 2020 07:44:20 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] gdb/testsuite: add simavr.exp board To: Simon Marchi , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20200524142040.209234-1-simon.marchi@polymtl.ca> <372695e3-7298-5c84-c009-6e41ca953d9f@redhat.com> <25976d2f-2071-49cc-c503-7408e254d06b@polymtl.ca> From: Pedro Alves Message-ID: Date: Mon, 25 May 2020 15:44:18 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.2.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <25976d2f-2071-49cc-c503-7408e254d06b@polymtl.ca> Content-Language: en-US X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, DKIM_VALID_EF, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) 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: Mon, 25 May 2020 14:44:27 -0000 On 5/25/20 2:29 PM, Simon Marchi via Gdb-patches wrote: > Ah, the issue wasn't really gdb_expect or the regex. > > It's just that gdb_run_cmd expects gdb_reload to return 0 in order > to proceed: > > 268 if { [gdb_reload] != 0 } { > 269 return > 270 } > > And tcl has this common shell behavior where a procedure returns > the same thing as the last thing it called, without an explicit > "return": > > $ cat test.tcl > proc p1 {} { > return 17 > } > > proc p2 {} { > p1 > } > > puts [p2] > $ tclsh test.tcl > 17 > Yeah. > And gdb_test_multiple just happened to return 0, but gdb_expect > did not. Using gdb_expect and adding a `return 0` in my proc > made it work. > Thanks for digging into it. > Here's the patch with that fixed: Don't you want to handle timeout (and maybe unexpected output) in the new gdb_expect call? Regardless, this LGTM. It doesn't impact anything else and can always be improved afterwards. Thanks, Pedro Alves