* gdb_test_no_output
@ 2010-06-03 17:50 Michael Snyder
2010-06-03 18:36 ` gdb_test_no_output Joel Brobecker
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Michael Snyder @ 2010-06-03 17:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gdb, Joel Brobecker
Joel,
An oft-used feature of gdb_test is that, if the message string is
supplied but empty (""), no PASS/FAIL output is produced. This is
used when you want to give a command to gdb without actually testing
anything.
Do you think you could make gdb_test_no_output behave the same?
Thanks,
Michael
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: gdb_test_no_output
2010-06-03 17:50 gdb_test_no_output Michael Snyder
@ 2010-06-03 18:36 ` Joel Brobecker
2010-06-03 18:39 ` gdb_test_no_output Michael Snyder
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Joel Brobecker @ 2010-06-03 18:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Michael Snyder; +Cc: gdb
> An oft-used feature of gdb_test is that, if the message string is
> supplied but empty (""), no PASS/FAIL output is produced. This is
> used when you want to give a command to gdb without actually testing
> anything.
It's very easy to implement the exact same behavior as gdb_test, but
are we certain that this is a valuable capability? Looking at the
documentation for that function, one can find:
# MESSAGE is an optional message to be printed. If this is
# omitted, then the pass/fail messages use the command string as the
# message. (If this is the empty string, then sometimes we don't
# call pass or fail at all; I don't understand this at all.)
The current implementation seems inconsistent; but also I don't think
that is really makes that much difference whether the test generates
a result or not.
But if that's what people want...
--
Joel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: gdb_test_no_output
2010-06-03 18:36 ` gdb_test_no_output Joel Brobecker
@ 2010-06-03 18:39 ` Michael Snyder
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Michael Snyder @ 2010-06-03 18:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Joel Brobecker; +Cc: gdb
Joel Brobecker wrote:
>> An oft-used feature of gdb_test is that, if the message string is
>> supplied but empty (""), no PASS/FAIL output is produced. This is
>> used when you want to give a command to gdb without actually testing
>> anything.
>
> It's very easy to implement the exact same behavior as gdb_test, but
> are we certain that this is a valuable capability? Looking at the
> documentation for that function, one can find:
>
> # MESSAGE is an optional message to be printed. If this is
> # omitted, then the pass/fail messages use the command string as the
> # message. (If this is the empty string, then sometimes we don't
> # call pass or fail at all; I don't understand this at all.)
>
> The current implementation seems inconsistent; but also I don't think
> that is really makes that much difference whether the test generates
> a result or not.
>
> But if that's what people want...
It used to be a frequently used "idiom" -- if you wanted to do a
"next", for instance, just to set up for the next thing that you
needed to test, you would say
gdb_test "next" "" ""
and it wouldn't add anything superfluous to the test output.
I'm currently looking at replacing the regexp part of those
usages with ".*", but the behavior in general is still useful,
I think.
Michael
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2010-06-03 18:39 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2010-06-03 17:50 gdb_test_no_output Michael Snyder
2010-06-03 18:36 ` gdb_test_no_output Joel Brobecker
2010-06-03 18:39 ` gdb_test_no_output Michael Snyder
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).