binutils-gdb/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/commands.exp

898 lines
24 KiB
Plaintext
Raw Normal View History

# Copyright 1988-2016 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
# This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
# it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
# the Free Software Foundation; either version 3 of the License, or
# (at your option) any later version.
#
# This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
# but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
# MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
# GNU General Public License for more details.
#
# You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
# along with this program. If not, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.
#
# test special commands (if, while, etc)
#
standard_testfile
if { [prepare_for_testing commands.exp commands run.c {debug additional_flags=-DFAKEARGV}] } {
return -1
}
# Run to FUNCTION. If that fails, issue a FAIL and make the caller
# return.
proc runto_or_return {function} {
if { ![runto factorial] } {
fail "cannot run to $function"
return -code return
}
}
gdb/testsuite: Introduce "proc_with_prefix" While adding new tests to gdb.base/commands.exp, I noticed that the file includes a bunch of individual testcases split into their own procedures, and that none have ever been adjusted to use with_test_prefix. Instead, each gdb_test/gdb_test_multiple/etc invocation takes care of including the procedure name in the test message, in order to make sure test messages are unique. Simon convinced me that using the procedure name as prefix is not that bad of an idea: https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2016-10/msg00020.html This commit adds an IMO simpler alternative to with_test_prefix_procname added by that patch -- a new "proc_with_prefix" convenience proc that is meant to be used in place of "proc", and then uses it in commands.exp. Procedures defined with this automatically run their bodies under with_test_prefix $proc_name. Here's a sample of the resulting gdb.sum diff: [...] -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: break factorial #3 -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: set value to 5 in test_command_prompt_position -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: if test in test_command_prompt_position -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: > OK in test_command_prompt_position +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: break factorial +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: set value to 5 +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: if test +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: > OK [...] gdb/testsuite/ChangeLog: 2016-11-09 Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com> * gdb.base/commands.exp (gdbvar_simple_if_test) (gdbvar_simple_while_test, gdbvar_complex_if_while_test) (progvar_simple_if_test, progvar_simple_while_test) (progvar_complex_if_while_test, if_while_breakpoint_command_test) (infrun_breakpoint_command_test, breakpoint_command_test) (user_defined_command_test, watchpoint_command_test) (test_command_prompt_position, deprecated_command_test) (bp_deleted_in_command, temporary_breakpoint_commands) (stray_arg0_test, source_file_with_indented_comment) (recursive_source_test, if_commands_test) (error_clears_commands_left, redefine_hook_test) (redefine_backtrace_test): Use proc_with_prefix. * lib/gdb.exp (proc_with_prefix): New proc.
2016-11-09 16:45:49 +01:00
proc_with_prefix gdbvar_simple_if_test {} {
global gdb_prompt
global valnum_re
gdb/testsuite: Introduce "proc_with_prefix" While adding new tests to gdb.base/commands.exp, I noticed that the file includes a bunch of individual testcases split into their own procedures, and that none have ever been adjusted to use with_test_prefix. Instead, each gdb_test/gdb_test_multiple/etc invocation takes care of including the procedure name in the test message, in order to make sure test messages are unique. Simon convinced me that using the procedure name as prefix is not that bad of an idea: https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2016-10/msg00020.html This commit adds an IMO simpler alternative to with_test_prefix_procname added by that patch -- a new "proc_with_prefix" convenience proc that is meant to be used in place of "proc", and then uses it in commands.exp. Procedures defined with this automatically run their bodies under with_test_prefix $proc_name. Here's a sample of the resulting gdb.sum diff: [...] -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: break factorial #3 -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: set value to 5 in test_command_prompt_position -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: if test in test_command_prompt_position -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: > OK in test_command_prompt_position +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: break factorial +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: set value to 5 +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: if test +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: > OK [...] gdb/testsuite/ChangeLog: 2016-11-09 Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com> * gdb.base/commands.exp (gdbvar_simple_if_test) (gdbvar_simple_while_test, gdbvar_complex_if_while_test) (progvar_simple_if_test, progvar_simple_while_test) (progvar_complex_if_while_test, if_while_breakpoint_command_test) (infrun_breakpoint_command_test, breakpoint_command_test) (user_defined_command_test, watchpoint_command_test) (test_command_prompt_position, deprecated_command_test) (bp_deleted_in_command, temporary_breakpoint_commands) (stray_arg0_test, source_file_with_indented_comment) (recursive_source_test, if_commands_test) (error_clears_commands_left, redefine_hook_test) (redefine_backtrace_test): Use proc_with_prefix. * lib/gdb.exp (proc_with_prefix): New proc.
2016-11-09 16:45:49 +01:00
gdb_test_no_output "set \$foo = 0" "set foo"
# All this test should do is print 0xdeadbeef once.
gdb_test \
[multi_line_input \
{if $foo == 1} \
{ p/x 0xfeedface} \
{else} \
{ p/x 0xdeadbeef} \
{end}] \
"$valnum_re = 0xdeadbeef" \
"#1"
# All this test should do is print 0xfeedface once.
gdb_test \
[multi_line_input \
{if $foo == 0} \
{ p/x 0xfeedface} \
{else} \
{ p/x 0xdeadbeef} \
{end}] \
"$valnum_re = 0xfeedface" \
"#2"
}
gdb/testsuite: Introduce "proc_with_prefix" While adding new tests to gdb.base/commands.exp, I noticed that the file includes a bunch of individual testcases split into their own procedures, and that none have ever been adjusted to use with_test_prefix. Instead, each gdb_test/gdb_test_multiple/etc invocation takes care of including the procedure name in the test message, in order to make sure test messages are unique. Simon convinced me that using the procedure name as prefix is not that bad of an idea: https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2016-10/msg00020.html This commit adds an IMO simpler alternative to with_test_prefix_procname added by that patch -- a new "proc_with_prefix" convenience proc that is meant to be used in place of "proc", and then uses it in commands.exp. Procedures defined with this automatically run their bodies under with_test_prefix $proc_name. Here's a sample of the resulting gdb.sum diff: [...] -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: break factorial #3 -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: set value to 5 in test_command_prompt_position -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: if test in test_command_prompt_position -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: > OK in test_command_prompt_position +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: break factorial +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: set value to 5 +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: if test +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: > OK [...] gdb/testsuite/ChangeLog: 2016-11-09 Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com> * gdb.base/commands.exp (gdbvar_simple_if_test) (gdbvar_simple_while_test, gdbvar_complex_if_while_test) (progvar_simple_if_test, progvar_simple_while_test) (progvar_complex_if_while_test, if_while_breakpoint_command_test) (infrun_breakpoint_command_test, breakpoint_command_test) (user_defined_command_test, watchpoint_command_test) (test_command_prompt_position, deprecated_command_test) (bp_deleted_in_command, temporary_breakpoint_commands) (stray_arg0_test, source_file_with_indented_comment) (recursive_source_test, if_commands_test) (error_clears_commands_left, redefine_hook_test) (redefine_backtrace_test): Use proc_with_prefix. * lib/gdb.exp (proc_with_prefix): New proc.
2016-11-09 16:45:49 +01:00
proc_with_prefix gdbvar_simple_while_test {} {
global gdb_prompt
global valnum_re
gdb/testsuite: Introduce "proc_with_prefix" While adding new tests to gdb.base/commands.exp, I noticed that the file includes a bunch of individual testcases split into their own procedures, and that none have ever been adjusted to use with_test_prefix. Instead, each gdb_test/gdb_test_multiple/etc invocation takes care of including the procedure name in the test message, in order to make sure test messages are unique. Simon convinced me that using the procedure name as prefix is not that bad of an idea: https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2016-10/msg00020.html This commit adds an IMO simpler alternative to with_test_prefix_procname added by that patch -- a new "proc_with_prefix" convenience proc that is meant to be used in place of "proc", and then uses it in commands.exp. Procedures defined with this automatically run their bodies under with_test_prefix $proc_name. Here's a sample of the resulting gdb.sum diff: [...] -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: break factorial #3 -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: set value to 5 in test_command_prompt_position -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: if test in test_command_prompt_position -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: > OK in test_command_prompt_position +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: break factorial +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: set value to 5 +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: if test +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: > OK [...] gdb/testsuite/ChangeLog: 2016-11-09 Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com> * gdb.base/commands.exp (gdbvar_simple_if_test) (gdbvar_simple_while_test, gdbvar_complex_if_while_test) (progvar_simple_if_test, progvar_simple_while_test) (progvar_complex_if_while_test, if_while_breakpoint_command_test) (infrun_breakpoint_command_test, breakpoint_command_test) (user_defined_command_test, watchpoint_command_test) (test_command_prompt_position, deprecated_command_test) (bp_deleted_in_command, temporary_breakpoint_commands) (stray_arg0_test, source_file_with_indented_comment) (recursive_source_test, if_commands_test) (error_clears_commands_left, redefine_hook_test) (redefine_backtrace_test): Use proc_with_prefix. * lib/gdb.exp (proc_with_prefix): New proc.
2016-11-09 16:45:49 +01:00
gdb_test_no_output "set \$foo = 5" "set foo"
# This test should print 0xfeedface five times.
gdb_test \
[multi_line_input \
{while $foo > 0} \
{ p/x 0xfeedface} \
{ set $foo -= 1} \
{end}] \
[multi_line \
"$valnum_re = 0xfeedface" \
"$valnum_re = 0xfeedface" \
"$valnum_re = 0xfeedface" \
"$valnum_re = 0xfeedface" \
"$valnum_re = 0xfeedface"] \
"#1"
}
gdb/testsuite: Introduce "proc_with_prefix" While adding new tests to gdb.base/commands.exp, I noticed that the file includes a bunch of individual testcases split into their own procedures, and that none have ever been adjusted to use with_test_prefix. Instead, each gdb_test/gdb_test_multiple/etc invocation takes care of including the procedure name in the test message, in order to make sure test messages are unique. Simon convinced me that using the procedure name as prefix is not that bad of an idea: https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2016-10/msg00020.html This commit adds an IMO simpler alternative to with_test_prefix_procname added by that patch -- a new "proc_with_prefix" convenience proc that is meant to be used in place of "proc", and then uses it in commands.exp. Procedures defined with this automatically run their bodies under with_test_prefix $proc_name. Here's a sample of the resulting gdb.sum diff: [...] -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: break factorial #3 -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: set value to 5 in test_command_prompt_position -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: if test in test_command_prompt_position -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: > OK in test_command_prompt_position +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: break factorial +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: set value to 5 +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: if test +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: > OK [...] gdb/testsuite/ChangeLog: 2016-11-09 Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com> * gdb.base/commands.exp (gdbvar_simple_if_test) (gdbvar_simple_while_test, gdbvar_complex_if_while_test) (progvar_simple_if_test, progvar_simple_while_test) (progvar_complex_if_while_test, if_while_breakpoint_command_test) (infrun_breakpoint_command_test, breakpoint_command_test) (user_defined_command_test, watchpoint_command_test) (test_command_prompt_position, deprecated_command_test) (bp_deleted_in_command, temporary_breakpoint_commands) (stray_arg0_test, source_file_with_indented_comment) (recursive_source_test, if_commands_test) (error_clears_commands_left, redefine_hook_test) (redefine_backtrace_test): Use proc_with_prefix. * lib/gdb.exp (proc_with_prefix): New proc.
2016-11-09 16:45:49 +01:00
proc_with_prefix gdbvar_complex_if_while_test {} {
global gdb_prompt
global valnum_re
gdb_test_no_output "set \$foo = 4" "set foo"
# This test should alternate between 0xdeadbeef and 0xfeedface two times.
gdb_test \
[multi_line_input \
{while $foo > 0} \
{ set $foo -= 1} \
{ if ($foo % 2) == 1} \
{ p/x 0xdeadbeef} \
{ else} \
{ p/x 0xfeedface} \
{ end} \
{end}] \
[multi_line \
"$valnum_re = 0xdeadbeef" \
"$valnum_re = 0xfeedface" \
"$valnum_re = 0xdeadbeef" \
"$valnum_re = 0xfeedface"] \
"#1"
}
gdb/testsuite: Introduce "proc_with_prefix" While adding new tests to gdb.base/commands.exp, I noticed that the file includes a bunch of individual testcases split into their own procedures, and that none have ever been adjusted to use with_test_prefix. Instead, each gdb_test/gdb_test_multiple/etc invocation takes care of including the procedure name in the test message, in order to make sure test messages are unique. Simon convinced me that using the procedure name as prefix is not that bad of an idea: https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2016-10/msg00020.html This commit adds an IMO simpler alternative to with_test_prefix_procname added by that patch -- a new "proc_with_prefix" convenience proc that is meant to be used in place of "proc", and then uses it in commands.exp. Procedures defined with this automatically run their bodies under with_test_prefix $proc_name. Here's a sample of the resulting gdb.sum diff: [...] -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: break factorial #3 -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: set value to 5 in test_command_prompt_position -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: if test in test_command_prompt_position -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: > OK in test_command_prompt_position +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: break factorial +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: set value to 5 +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: if test +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: > OK [...] gdb/testsuite/ChangeLog: 2016-11-09 Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com> * gdb.base/commands.exp (gdbvar_simple_if_test) (gdbvar_simple_while_test, gdbvar_complex_if_while_test) (progvar_simple_if_test, progvar_simple_while_test) (progvar_complex_if_while_test, if_while_breakpoint_command_test) (infrun_breakpoint_command_test, breakpoint_command_test) (user_defined_command_test, watchpoint_command_test) (test_command_prompt_position, deprecated_command_test) (bp_deleted_in_command, temporary_breakpoint_commands) (stray_arg0_test, source_file_with_indented_comment) (recursive_source_test, if_commands_test) (error_clears_commands_left, redefine_hook_test) (redefine_backtrace_test): Use proc_with_prefix. * lib/gdb.exp (proc_with_prefix): New proc.
2016-11-09 16:45:49 +01:00
proc_with_prefix progvar_simple_if_test {} {
global gdb_prompt
global valnum_re
runto_or_return factorial
# Don't depend upon argument passing, since most simulators don't
# currently support it. Bash value variable to be what we want.
gdb_test "p value=5" " = 5" "set value to 5"
# All this test should do is print 0xdeadbeef once.
gdb_test \
[multi_line_input \
{if value == 1} \
{ p/x 0xfeedface} \
{else} \
{ p/x 0xdeadbeef} \
{end}] \
"$valnum_re = 0xdeadbeef" \
"#1"
# All this test should do is print 0xfeedface once.
gdb_test \
[multi_line_input \
{if value == 5} \
{ p/x 0xfeedface} \
{else} \
{ p/x 0xdeadbeef} \
{end}] \
"$valnum_re = 0xfeedface" \
"#2"
}
gdb/testsuite: Introduce "proc_with_prefix" While adding new tests to gdb.base/commands.exp, I noticed that the file includes a bunch of individual testcases split into their own procedures, and that none have ever been adjusted to use with_test_prefix. Instead, each gdb_test/gdb_test_multiple/etc invocation takes care of including the procedure name in the test message, in order to make sure test messages are unique. Simon convinced me that using the procedure name as prefix is not that bad of an idea: https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2016-10/msg00020.html This commit adds an IMO simpler alternative to with_test_prefix_procname added by that patch -- a new "proc_with_prefix" convenience proc that is meant to be used in place of "proc", and then uses it in commands.exp. Procedures defined with this automatically run their bodies under with_test_prefix $proc_name. Here's a sample of the resulting gdb.sum diff: [...] -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: break factorial #3 -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: set value to 5 in test_command_prompt_position -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: if test in test_command_prompt_position -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: > OK in test_command_prompt_position +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: break factorial +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: set value to 5 +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: if test +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: > OK [...] gdb/testsuite/ChangeLog: 2016-11-09 Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com> * gdb.base/commands.exp (gdbvar_simple_if_test) (gdbvar_simple_while_test, gdbvar_complex_if_while_test) (progvar_simple_if_test, progvar_simple_while_test) (progvar_complex_if_while_test, if_while_breakpoint_command_test) (infrun_breakpoint_command_test, breakpoint_command_test) (user_defined_command_test, watchpoint_command_test) (test_command_prompt_position, deprecated_command_test) (bp_deleted_in_command, temporary_breakpoint_commands) (stray_arg0_test, source_file_with_indented_comment) (recursive_source_test, if_commands_test) (error_clears_commands_left, redefine_hook_test) (redefine_backtrace_test): Use proc_with_prefix. * lib/gdb.exp (proc_with_prefix): New proc.
2016-11-09 16:45:49 +01:00
proc_with_prefix progvar_simple_while_test {} {
global gdb_prompt
global valnum_re
runto_or_return factorial
# Don't depend upon argument passing, since most simulators don't
# currently support it. Bash value variable to be what we want.
gdb_test "p value=5" " = 5" "set value to 5"
# This test should print 0xfeedface five times.
gdb_test \
[multi_line_input \
{while value > 0} \
{ p/x 0xfeedface} \
{ set value -= 1} \
{end}] \
[multi_line \
"$valnum_re = 0xfeedface" \
"$valnum_re = 0xfeedface" \
"$valnum_re = 0xfeedface" \
"$valnum_re = 0xfeedface" \
"$valnum_re = 0xfeedface"] \
"#1"
}
gdb/testsuite: Introduce "proc_with_prefix" While adding new tests to gdb.base/commands.exp, I noticed that the file includes a bunch of individual testcases split into their own procedures, and that none have ever been adjusted to use with_test_prefix. Instead, each gdb_test/gdb_test_multiple/etc invocation takes care of including the procedure name in the test message, in order to make sure test messages are unique. Simon convinced me that using the procedure name as prefix is not that bad of an idea: https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2016-10/msg00020.html This commit adds an IMO simpler alternative to with_test_prefix_procname added by that patch -- a new "proc_with_prefix" convenience proc that is meant to be used in place of "proc", and then uses it in commands.exp. Procedures defined with this automatically run their bodies under with_test_prefix $proc_name. Here's a sample of the resulting gdb.sum diff: [...] -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: break factorial #3 -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: set value to 5 in test_command_prompt_position -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: if test in test_command_prompt_position -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: > OK in test_command_prompt_position +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: break factorial +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: set value to 5 +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: if test +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: > OK [...] gdb/testsuite/ChangeLog: 2016-11-09 Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com> * gdb.base/commands.exp (gdbvar_simple_if_test) (gdbvar_simple_while_test, gdbvar_complex_if_while_test) (progvar_simple_if_test, progvar_simple_while_test) (progvar_complex_if_while_test, if_while_breakpoint_command_test) (infrun_breakpoint_command_test, breakpoint_command_test) (user_defined_command_test, watchpoint_command_test) (test_command_prompt_position, deprecated_command_test) (bp_deleted_in_command, temporary_breakpoint_commands) (stray_arg0_test, source_file_with_indented_comment) (recursive_source_test, if_commands_test) (error_clears_commands_left, redefine_hook_test) (redefine_backtrace_test): Use proc_with_prefix. * lib/gdb.exp (proc_with_prefix): New proc.
2016-11-09 16:45:49 +01:00
proc_with_prefix progvar_complex_if_while_test {} {
global gdb_prompt
global valnum_re
runto_or_return factorial
# Don't depend upon argument passing, since most simulators don't
# currently support it. Bash value variable to be what we want.
gdb_test "p value=4" " = 4" "set value to 4"
# This test should alternate between 0xdeadbeef and 0xfeedface two
# times.
gdb_test \
[multi_line_input \
{while value > 0} \
{ set value -= 1} \
{ if (value % 2) == 1} \
{ p/x 0xdeadbeef} \
{ else} \
{ p/x 0xfeedface} \
{ end} \
{end}] \
[multi_line \
"$valnum_re = 0xdeadbeef" \
"$valnum_re = 0xfeedface" \
"$valnum_re = 0xdeadbeef" \
"$valnum_re = 0xfeedface"] \
"#1"
}
gdb/testsuite: Introduce "proc_with_prefix" While adding new tests to gdb.base/commands.exp, I noticed that the file includes a bunch of individual testcases split into their own procedures, and that none have ever been adjusted to use with_test_prefix. Instead, each gdb_test/gdb_test_multiple/etc invocation takes care of including the procedure name in the test message, in order to make sure test messages are unique. Simon convinced me that using the procedure name as prefix is not that bad of an idea: https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2016-10/msg00020.html This commit adds an IMO simpler alternative to with_test_prefix_procname added by that patch -- a new "proc_with_prefix" convenience proc that is meant to be used in place of "proc", and then uses it in commands.exp. Procedures defined with this automatically run their bodies under with_test_prefix $proc_name. Here's a sample of the resulting gdb.sum diff: [...] -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: break factorial #3 -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: set value to 5 in test_command_prompt_position -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: if test in test_command_prompt_position -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: > OK in test_command_prompt_position +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: break factorial +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: set value to 5 +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: if test +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: > OK [...] gdb/testsuite/ChangeLog: 2016-11-09 Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com> * gdb.base/commands.exp (gdbvar_simple_if_test) (gdbvar_simple_while_test, gdbvar_complex_if_while_test) (progvar_simple_if_test, progvar_simple_while_test) (progvar_complex_if_while_test, if_while_breakpoint_command_test) (infrun_breakpoint_command_test, breakpoint_command_test) (user_defined_command_test, watchpoint_command_test) (test_command_prompt_position, deprecated_command_test) (bp_deleted_in_command, temporary_breakpoint_commands) (stray_arg0_test, source_file_with_indented_comment) (recursive_source_test, if_commands_test) (error_clears_commands_left, redefine_hook_test) (redefine_backtrace_test): Use proc_with_prefix. * lib/gdb.exp (proc_with_prefix): New proc.
2016-11-09 16:45:49 +01:00
proc_with_prefix if_while_breakpoint_command_test {} {
global valnum_re
runto_or_return factorial
# Don't depend upon argument passing, since most simulators don't
# currently support it. Bash value variable to be what we want.
gdb_test "p value=5" " = 5" "set value to 5"
delete_breakpoints
gdb/testsuite: Introduce "proc_with_prefix" While adding new tests to gdb.base/commands.exp, I noticed that the file includes a bunch of individual testcases split into their own procedures, and that none have ever been adjusted to use with_test_prefix. Instead, each gdb_test/gdb_test_multiple/etc invocation takes care of including the procedure name in the test message, in order to make sure test messages are unique. Simon convinced me that using the procedure name as prefix is not that bad of an idea: https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2016-10/msg00020.html This commit adds an IMO simpler alternative to with_test_prefix_procname added by that patch -- a new "proc_with_prefix" convenience proc that is meant to be used in place of "proc", and then uses it in commands.exp. Procedures defined with this automatically run their bodies under with_test_prefix $proc_name. Here's a sample of the resulting gdb.sum diff: [...] -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: break factorial #3 -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: set value to 5 in test_command_prompt_position -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: if test in test_command_prompt_position -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: > OK in test_command_prompt_position +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: break factorial +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: set value to 5 +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: if test +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: > OK [...] gdb/testsuite/ChangeLog: 2016-11-09 Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com> * gdb.base/commands.exp (gdbvar_simple_if_test) (gdbvar_simple_while_test, gdbvar_complex_if_while_test) (progvar_simple_if_test, progvar_simple_while_test) (progvar_complex_if_while_test, if_while_breakpoint_command_test) (infrun_breakpoint_command_test, breakpoint_command_test) (user_defined_command_test, watchpoint_command_test) (test_command_prompt_position, deprecated_command_test) (bp_deleted_in_command, temporary_breakpoint_commands) (stray_arg0_test, source_file_with_indented_comment) (recursive_source_test, if_commands_test) (error_clears_commands_left, redefine_hook_test) (redefine_backtrace_test): Use proc_with_prefix. * lib/gdb.exp (proc_with_prefix): New proc.
2016-11-09 16:45:49 +01:00
gdb_test "break factorial" "Breakpoint.*at.*" "break factorial"
gdb/testsuite: Introduce "proc_with_prefix" While adding new tests to gdb.base/commands.exp, I noticed that the file includes a bunch of individual testcases split into their own procedures, and that none have ever been adjusted to use with_test_prefix. Instead, each gdb_test/gdb_test_multiple/etc invocation takes care of including the procedure name in the test message, in order to make sure test messages are unique. Simon convinced me that using the procedure name as prefix is not that bad of an idea: https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2016-10/msg00020.html This commit adds an IMO simpler alternative to with_test_prefix_procname added by that patch -- a new "proc_with_prefix" convenience proc that is meant to be used in place of "proc", and then uses it in commands.exp. Procedures defined with this automatically run their bodies under with_test_prefix $proc_name. Here's a sample of the resulting gdb.sum diff: [...] -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: break factorial #3 -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: set value to 5 in test_command_prompt_position -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: if test in test_command_prompt_position -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: > OK in test_command_prompt_position +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: break factorial +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: set value to 5 +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: if test +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: > OK [...] gdb/testsuite/ChangeLog: 2016-11-09 Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com> * gdb.base/commands.exp (gdbvar_simple_if_test) (gdbvar_simple_while_test, gdbvar_complex_if_while_test) (progvar_simple_if_test, progvar_simple_while_test) (progvar_complex_if_while_test, if_while_breakpoint_command_test) (infrun_breakpoint_command_test, breakpoint_command_test) (user_defined_command_test, watchpoint_command_test) (test_command_prompt_position, deprecated_command_test) (bp_deleted_in_command, temporary_breakpoint_commands) (stray_arg0_test, source_file_with_indented_comment) (recursive_source_test, if_commands_test) (error_clears_commands_left, redefine_hook_test) (redefine_backtrace_test): Use proc_with_prefix. * lib/gdb.exp (proc_with_prefix): New proc.
2016-11-09 16:45:49 +01:00
gdb_test_multiple "commands" "commands" {
-re "End with" {
pass "commands"
}
gdb/testsuite: Introduce "proc_with_prefix" While adding new tests to gdb.base/commands.exp, I noticed that the file includes a bunch of individual testcases split into their own procedures, and that none have ever been adjusted to use with_test_prefix. Instead, each gdb_test/gdb_test_multiple/etc invocation takes care of including the procedure name in the test message, in order to make sure test messages are unique. Simon convinced me that using the procedure name as prefix is not that bad of an idea: https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2016-10/msg00020.html This commit adds an IMO simpler alternative to with_test_prefix_procname added by that patch -- a new "proc_with_prefix" convenience proc that is meant to be used in place of "proc", and then uses it in commands.exp. Procedures defined with this automatically run their bodies under with_test_prefix $proc_name. Here's a sample of the resulting gdb.sum diff: [...] -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: break factorial #3 -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: set value to 5 in test_command_prompt_position -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: if test in test_command_prompt_position -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: > OK in test_command_prompt_position +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: break factorial +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: set value to 5 +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: if test +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: > OK [...] gdb/testsuite/ChangeLog: 2016-11-09 Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com> * gdb.base/commands.exp (gdbvar_simple_if_test) (gdbvar_simple_while_test, gdbvar_complex_if_while_test) (progvar_simple_if_test, progvar_simple_while_test) (progvar_complex_if_while_test, if_while_breakpoint_command_test) (infrun_breakpoint_command_test, breakpoint_command_test) (user_defined_command_test, watchpoint_command_test) (test_command_prompt_position, deprecated_command_test) (bp_deleted_in_command, temporary_breakpoint_commands) (stray_arg0_test, source_file_with_indented_comment) (recursive_source_test, if_commands_test) (error_clears_commands_left, redefine_hook_test) (redefine_backtrace_test): Use proc_with_prefix. * lib/gdb.exp (proc_with_prefix): New proc.
2016-11-09 16:45:49 +01:00
}
# This test should alternate between 0xdeadbeef and 0xfeedface two times.
gdb_test \
[multi_line_input \
{while value > 0} \
{ set value -= 1} \
{ if (value % 2) == 1} \
{ p/x 0xdeadbeef} \
{ else} \
{ p/x 0xfeedface} \
{ end} \
{end} \
{end}] \
"" \
"commands part 2"
gdb_test \
"continue" \
[multi_line \
"$valnum_re = 0xdeadbeef" \
"$valnum_re = 0xfeedface" \
"$valnum_re = 0xdeadbeef" \
"$valnum_re = 0xfeedface"] \
"#1"
gdb/testsuite: Introduce "proc_with_prefix" While adding new tests to gdb.base/commands.exp, I noticed that the file includes a bunch of individual testcases split into their own procedures, and that none have ever been adjusted to use with_test_prefix. Instead, each gdb_test/gdb_test_multiple/etc invocation takes care of including the procedure name in the test message, in order to make sure test messages are unique. Simon convinced me that using the procedure name as prefix is not that bad of an idea: https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2016-10/msg00020.html This commit adds an IMO simpler alternative to with_test_prefix_procname added by that patch -- a new "proc_with_prefix" convenience proc that is meant to be used in place of "proc", and then uses it in commands.exp. Procedures defined with this automatically run their bodies under with_test_prefix $proc_name. Here's a sample of the resulting gdb.sum diff: [...] -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: break factorial #3 -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: set value to 5 in test_command_prompt_position -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: if test in test_command_prompt_position -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: > OK in test_command_prompt_position +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: break factorial +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: set value to 5 +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: if test +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: > OK [...] gdb/testsuite/ChangeLog: 2016-11-09 Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com> * gdb.base/commands.exp (gdbvar_simple_if_test) (gdbvar_simple_while_test, gdbvar_complex_if_while_test) (progvar_simple_if_test, progvar_simple_while_test) (progvar_complex_if_while_test, if_while_breakpoint_command_test) (infrun_breakpoint_command_test, breakpoint_command_test) (user_defined_command_test, watchpoint_command_test) (test_command_prompt_position, deprecated_command_test) (bp_deleted_in_command, temporary_breakpoint_commands) (stray_arg0_test, source_file_with_indented_comment) (recursive_source_test, if_commands_test) (error_clears_commands_left, redefine_hook_test) (redefine_backtrace_test): Use proc_with_prefix. * lib/gdb.exp (proc_with_prefix): New proc.
2016-11-09 16:45:49 +01:00
gdb_test "info break" "while.*set.*if.*p/x.*else.*p/x.*end.*"
}
# Test that we can run the inferior from breakpoint commands.
#
# The expected behavior is that all commands after the first "step"
# shall be ignored. See the gdb manual, "Break Commands",
# subsection "Breakpoint command lists".
gdb/testsuite: Introduce "proc_with_prefix" While adding new tests to gdb.base/commands.exp, I noticed that the file includes a bunch of individual testcases split into their own procedures, and that none have ever been adjusted to use with_test_prefix. Instead, each gdb_test/gdb_test_multiple/etc invocation takes care of including the procedure name in the test message, in order to make sure test messages are unique. Simon convinced me that using the procedure name as prefix is not that bad of an idea: https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2016-10/msg00020.html This commit adds an IMO simpler alternative to with_test_prefix_procname added by that patch -- a new "proc_with_prefix" convenience proc that is meant to be used in place of "proc", and then uses it in commands.exp. Procedures defined with this automatically run their bodies under with_test_prefix $proc_name. Here's a sample of the resulting gdb.sum diff: [...] -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: break factorial #3 -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: set value to 5 in test_command_prompt_position -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: if test in test_command_prompt_position -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: > OK in test_command_prompt_position +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: break factorial +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: set value to 5 +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: if test +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: > OK [...] gdb/testsuite/ChangeLog: 2016-11-09 Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com> * gdb.base/commands.exp (gdbvar_simple_if_test) (gdbvar_simple_while_test, gdbvar_complex_if_while_test) (progvar_simple_if_test, progvar_simple_while_test) (progvar_complex_if_while_test, if_while_breakpoint_command_test) (infrun_breakpoint_command_test, breakpoint_command_test) (user_defined_command_test, watchpoint_command_test) (test_command_prompt_position, deprecated_command_test) (bp_deleted_in_command, temporary_breakpoint_commands) (stray_arg0_test, source_file_with_indented_comment) (recursive_source_test, if_commands_test) (error_clears_commands_left, redefine_hook_test) (redefine_backtrace_test): Use proc_with_prefix. * lib/gdb.exp (proc_with_prefix): New proc.
2016-11-09 16:45:49 +01:00
proc_with_prefix infrun_breakpoint_command_test {} {
runto_or_return factorial
# Don't depend upon argument passing, since most simulators don't
# currently support it. Bash value variable to be what we want.
gdb_test "p value=6" " = 6" "set value to 6"
delete_breakpoints
gdb_test "break factorial if value == 5" "Breakpoint.*at.*"
2000-03-27 07:29:24 +02:00
# infrun_breakpoint_command_test - This test was broken into two parts
# to get around a synchronization problem in expect.
# part1: issue the gdb command "commands"
# part2: send the list of commands
gdb/testsuite: Introduce "proc_with_prefix" While adding new tests to gdb.base/commands.exp, I noticed that the file includes a bunch of individual testcases split into their own procedures, and that none have ever been adjusted to use with_test_prefix. Instead, each gdb_test/gdb_test_multiple/etc invocation takes care of including the procedure name in the test message, in order to make sure test messages are unique. Simon convinced me that using the procedure name as prefix is not that bad of an idea: https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2016-10/msg00020.html This commit adds an IMO simpler alternative to with_test_prefix_procname added by that patch -- a new "proc_with_prefix" convenience proc that is meant to be used in place of "proc", and then uses it in commands.exp. Procedures defined with this automatically run their bodies under with_test_prefix $proc_name. Here's a sample of the resulting gdb.sum diff: [...] -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: break factorial #3 -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: set value to 5 in test_command_prompt_position -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: if test in test_command_prompt_position -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: > OK in test_command_prompt_position +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: break factorial +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: set value to 5 +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: if test +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: > OK [...] gdb/testsuite/ChangeLog: 2016-11-09 Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com> * gdb.base/commands.exp (gdbvar_simple_if_test) (gdbvar_simple_while_test, gdbvar_complex_if_while_test) (progvar_simple_if_test, progvar_simple_while_test) (progvar_complex_if_while_test, if_while_breakpoint_command_test) (infrun_breakpoint_command_test, breakpoint_command_test) (user_defined_command_test, watchpoint_command_test) (test_command_prompt_position, deprecated_command_test) (bp_deleted_in_command, temporary_breakpoint_commands) (stray_arg0_test, source_file_with_indented_comment) (recursive_source_test, if_commands_test) (error_clears_commands_left, redefine_hook_test) (redefine_backtrace_test): Use proc_with_prefix. * lib/gdb.exp (proc_with_prefix): New proc.
2016-11-09 16:45:49 +01:00
set test "commands #1"
gdb_test_multiple "commands" $test {
-re "End with" {
pass $test
}
gdb/testsuite: Introduce "proc_with_prefix" While adding new tests to gdb.base/commands.exp, I noticed that the file includes a bunch of individual testcases split into their own procedures, and that none have ever been adjusted to use with_test_prefix. Instead, each gdb_test/gdb_test_multiple/etc invocation takes care of including the procedure name in the test message, in order to make sure test messages are unique. Simon convinced me that using the procedure name as prefix is not that bad of an idea: https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2016-10/msg00020.html This commit adds an IMO simpler alternative to with_test_prefix_procname added by that patch -- a new "proc_with_prefix" convenience proc that is meant to be used in place of "proc", and then uses it in commands.exp. Procedures defined with this automatically run their bodies under with_test_prefix $proc_name. Here's a sample of the resulting gdb.sum diff: [...] -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: break factorial #3 -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: set value to 5 in test_command_prompt_position -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: if test in test_command_prompt_position -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: > OK in test_command_prompt_position +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: break factorial +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: set value to 5 +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: if test +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: > OK [...] gdb/testsuite/ChangeLog: 2016-11-09 Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com> * gdb.base/commands.exp (gdbvar_simple_if_test) (gdbvar_simple_while_test, gdbvar_complex_if_while_test) (progvar_simple_if_test, progvar_simple_while_test) (progvar_complex_if_while_test, if_while_breakpoint_command_test) (infrun_breakpoint_command_test, breakpoint_command_test) (user_defined_command_test, watchpoint_command_test) (test_command_prompt_position, deprecated_command_test) (bp_deleted_in_command, temporary_breakpoint_commands) (stray_arg0_test, source_file_with_indented_comment) (recursive_source_test, if_commands_test) (error_clears_commands_left, redefine_hook_test) (redefine_backtrace_test): Use proc_with_prefix. * lib/gdb.exp (proc_with_prefix): New proc.
2016-11-09 16:45:49 +01:00
}
gdb_test "step\nstep\nstep\nstep\nend" "" \
gdb/testsuite: Introduce "proc_with_prefix" While adding new tests to gdb.base/commands.exp, I noticed that the file includes a bunch of individual testcases split into their own procedures, and that none have ever been adjusted to use with_test_prefix. Instead, each gdb_test/gdb_test_multiple/etc invocation takes care of including the procedure name in the test message, in order to make sure test messages are unique. Simon convinced me that using the procedure name as prefix is not that bad of an idea: https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2016-10/msg00020.html This commit adds an IMO simpler alternative to with_test_prefix_procname added by that patch -- a new "proc_with_prefix" convenience proc that is meant to be used in place of "proc", and then uses it in commands.exp. Procedures defined with this automatically run their bodies under with_test_prefix $proc_name. Here's a sample of the resulting gdb.sum diff: [...] -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: break factorial #3 -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: set value to 5 in test_command_prompt_position -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: if test in test_command_prompt_position -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: > OK in test_command_prompt_position +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: break factorial +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: set value to 5 +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: if test +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: > OK [...] gdb/testsuite/ChangeLog: 2016-11-09 Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com> * gdb.base/commands.exp (gdbvar_simple_if_test) (gdbvar_simple_while_test, gdbvar_complex_if_while_test) (progvar_simple_if_test, progvar_simple_while_test) (progvar_complex_if_while_test, if_while_breakpoint_command_test) (infrun_breakpoint_command_test, breakpoint_command_test) (user_defined_command_test, watchpoint_command_test) (test_command_prompt_position, deprecated_command_test) (bp_deleted_in_command, temporary_breakpoint_commands) (stray_arg0_test, source_file_with_indented_comment) (recursive_source_test, if_commands_test) (error_clears_commands_left, redefine_hook_test) (redefine_backtrace_test): Use proc_with_prefix. * lib/gdb.exp (proc_with_prefix): New proc.
2016-11-09 16:45:49 +01:00
"commands #2"
1999-06-28 18:06:02 +02:00
gdb_test "continue" \
gdb/testsuite: Introduce "proc_with_prefix" While adding new tests to gdb.base/commands.exp, I noticed that the file includes a bunch of individual testcases split into their own procedures, and that none have ever been adjusted to use with_test_prefix. Instead, each gdb_test/gdb_test_multiple/etc invocation takes care of including the procedure name in the test message, in order to make sure test messages are unique. Simon convinced me that using the procedure name as prefix is not that bad of an idea: https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2016-10/msg00020.html This commit adds an IMO simpler alternative to with_test_prefix_procname added by that patch -- a new "proc_with_prefix" convenience proc that is meant to be used in place of "proc", and then uses it in commands.exp. Procedures defined with this automatically run their bodies under with_test_prefix $proc_name. Here's a sample of the resulting gdb.sum diff: [...] -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: break factorial #3 -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: set value to 5 in test_command_prompt_position -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: if test in test_command_prompt_position -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: > OK in test_command_prompt_position +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: break factorial +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: set value to 5 +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: if test +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: > OK [...] gdb/testsuite/ChangeLog: 2016-11-09 Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com> * gdb.base/commands.exp (gdbvar_simple_if_test) (gdbvar_simple_while_test, gdbvar_complex_if_while_test) (progvar_simple_if_test, progvar_simple_while_test) (progvar_complex_if_while_test, if_while_breakpoint_command_test) (infrun_breakpoint_command_test, breakpoint_command_test) (user_defined_command_test, watchpoint_command_test) (test_command_prompt_position, deprecated_command_test) (bp_deleted_in_command, temporary_breakpoint_commands) (stray_arg0_test, source_file_with_indented_comment) (recursive_source_test, if_commands_test) (error_clears_commands_left, redefine_hook_test) (redefine_backtrace_test): Use proc_with_prefix. * lib/gdb.exp (proc_with_prefix): New proc.
2016-11-09 16:45:49 +01:00
"Continuing.*.*.*Breakpoint \[0-9\]*, factorial \\(value=5\\).*at.*\[0-9\]*\[ \]*if \\(value > 1\\) \{.*\[0-9\]*\[ \]*value \\*= factorial \\(value - 1\\);.*"
}
gdb/testsuite: Introduce "proc_with_prefix" While adding new tests to gdb.base/commands.exp, I noticed that the file includes a bunch of individual testcases split into their own procedures, and that none have ever been adjusted to use with_test_prefix. Instead, each gdb_test/gdb_test_multiple/etc invocation takes care of including the procedure name in the test message, in order to make sure test messages are unique. Simon convinced me that using the procedure name as prefix is not that bad of an idea: https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2016-10/msg00020.html This commit adds an IMO simpler alternative to with_test_prefix_procname added by that patch -- a new "proc_with_prefix" convenience proc that is meant to be used in place of "proc", and then uses it in commands.exp. Procedures defined with this automatically run their bodies under with_test_prefix $proc_name. Here's a sample of the resulting gdb.sum diff: [...] -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: break factorial #3 -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: set value to 5 in test_command_prompt_position -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: if test in test_command_prompt_position -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: > OK in test_command_prompt_position +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: break factorial +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: set value to 5 +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: if test +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: > OK [...] gdb/testsuite/ChangeLog: 2016-11-09 Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com> * gdb.base/commands.exp (gdbvar_simple_if_test) (gdbvar_simple_while_test, gdbvar_complex_if_while_test) (progvar_simple_if_test, progvar_simple_while_test) (progvar_complex_if_while_test, if_while_breakpoint_command_test) (infrun_breakpoint_command_test, breakpoint_command_test) (user_defined_command_test, watchpoint_command_test) (test_command_prompt_position, deprecated_command_test) (bp_deleted_in_command, temporary_breakpoint_commands) (stray_arg0_test, source_file_with_indented_comment) (recursive_source_test, if_commands_test) (error_clears_commands_left, redefine_hook_test) (redefine_backtrace_test): Use proc_with_prefix. * lib/gdb.exp (proc_with_prefix): New proc.
2016-11-09 16:45:49 +01:00
proc_with_prefix breakpoint_command_test {} {
runto_or_return factorial
# Don't depend upon argument passing, since most simulators don't
# currently support it. Bash value variable to be what we want.
gdb_test "p value=6" " = 6" "set value to 6"
delete_breakpoints
gdb/testsuite: Introduce "proc_with_prefix" While adding new tests to gdb.base/commands.exp, I noticed that the file includes a bunch of individual testcases split into their own procedures, and that none have ever been adjusted to use with_test_prefix. Instead, each gdb_test/gdb_test_multiple/etc invocation takes care of including the procedure name in the test message, in order to make sure test messages are unique. Simon convinced me that using the procedure name as prefix is not that bad of an idea: https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2016-10/msg00020.html This commit adds an IMO simpler alternative to with_test_prefix_procname added by that patch -- a new "proc_with_prefix" convenience proc that is meant to be used in place of "proc", and then uses it in commands.exp. Procedures defined with this automatically run their bodies under with_test_prefix $proc_name. Here's a sample of the resulting gdb.sum diff: [...] -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: break factorial #3 -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: set value to 5 in test_command_prompt_position -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: if test in test_command_prompt_position -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: > OK in test_command_prompt_position +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: break factorial +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: set value to 5 +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: if test +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: > OK [...] gdb/testsuite/ChangeLog: 2016-11-09 Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com> * gdb.base/commands.exp (gdbvar_simple_if_test) (gdbvar_simple_while_test, gdbvar_complex_if_while_test) (progvar_simple_if_test, progvar_simple_while_test) (progvar_complex_if_while_test, if_while_breakpoint_command_test) (infrun_breakpoint_command_test, breakpoint_command_test) (user_defined_command_test, watchpoint_command_test) (test_command_prompt_position, deprecated_command_test) (bp_deleted_in_command, temporary_breakpoint_commands) (stray_arg0_test, source_file_with_indented_comment) (recursive_source_test, if_commands_test) (error_clears_commands_left, redefine_hook_test) (redefine_backtrace_test): Use proc_with_prefix. * lib/gdb.exp (proc_with_prefix): New proc.
2016-11-09 16:45:49 +01:00
gdb_test "break factorial" "Breakpoint.*at.*"
gdb_test \
[multi_line_input \
{commands} \
{ printf "Now the value is %d\n", value} \
{end}] \
"End with.*" \
"commands"
gdb_test "continue" \
gdb/testsuite: Introduce "proc_with_prefix" While adding new tests to gdb.base/commands.exp, I noticed that the file includes a bunch of individual testcases split into their own procedures, and that none have ever been adjusted to use with_test_prefix. Instead, each gdb_test/gdb_test_multiple/etc invocation takes care of including the procedure name in the test message, in order to make sure test messages are unique. Simon convinced me that using the procedure name as prefix is not that bad of an idea: https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2016-10/msg00020.html This commit adds an IMO simpler alternative to with_test_prefix_procname added by that patch -- a new "proc_with_prefix" convenience proc that is meant to be used in place of "proc", and then uses it in commands.exp. Procedures defined with this automatically run their bodies under with_test_prefix $proc_name. Here's a sample of the resulting gdb.sum diff: [...] -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: break factorial #3 -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: set value to 5 in test_command_prompt_position -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: if test in test_command_prompt_position -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: > OK in test_command_prompt_position +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: break factorial +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: set value to 5 +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: if test +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: > OK [...] gdb/testsuite/ChangeLog: 2016-11-09 Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com> * gdb.base/commands.exp (gdbvar_simple_if_test) (gdbvar_simple_while_test, gdbvar_complex_if_while_test) (progvar_simple_if_test, progvar_simple_while_test) (progvar_complex_if_while_test, if_while_breakpoint_command_test) (infrun_breakpoint_command_test, breakpoint_command_test) (user_defined_command_test, watchpoint_command_test) (test_command_prompt_position, deprecated_command_test) (bp_deleted_in_command, temporary_breakpoint_commands) (stray_arg0_test, source_file_with_indented_comment) (recursive_source_test, if_commands_test) (error_clears_commands_left, redefine_hook_test) (redefine_backtrace_test): Use proc_with_prefix. * lib/gdb.exp (proc_with_prefix): New proc.
2016-11-09 16:45:49 +01:00
"Breakpoint \[0-9\]*, factorial.*Now the value is 5"
gdb_test "print value" " = 5"
}
# Test a simple user defined command (with arguments)
gdb/testsuite: Introduce "proc_with_prefix" While adding new tests to gdb.base/commands.exp, I noticed that the file includes a bunch of individual testcases split into their own procedures, and that none have ever been adjusted to use with_test_prefix. Instead, each gdb_test/gdb_test_multiple/etc invocation takes care of including the procedure name in the test message, in order to make sure test messages are unique. Simon convinced me that using the procedure name as prefix is not that bad of an idea: https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2016-10/msg00020.html This commit adds an IMO simpler alternative to with_test_prefix_procname added by that patch -- a new "proc_with_prefix" convenience proc that is meant to be used in place of "proc", and then uses it in commands.exp. Procedures defined with this automatically run their bodies under with_test_prefix $proc_name. Here's a sample of the resulting gdb.sum diff: [...] -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: break factorial #3 -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: set value to 5 in test_command_prompt_position -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: if test in test_command_prompt_position -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: > OK in test_command_prompt_position +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: break factorial +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: set value to 5 +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: if test +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: > OK [...] gdb/testsuite/ChangeLog: 2016-11-09 Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com> * gdb.base/commands.exp (gdbvar_simple_if_test) (gdbvar_simple_while_test, gdbvar_complex_if_while_test) (progvar_simple_if_test, progvar_simple_while_test) (progvar_complex_if_while_test, if_while_breakpoint_command_test) (infrun_breakpoint_command_test, breakpoint_command_test) (user_defined_command_test, watchpoint_command_test) (test_command_prompt_position, deprecated_command_test) (bp_deleted_in_command, temporary_breakpoint_commands) (stray_arg0_test, source_file_with_indented_comment) (recursive_source_test, if_commands_test) (error_clears_commands_left, redefine_hook_test) (redefine_backtrace_test): Use proc_with_prefix. * lib/gdb.exp (proc_with_prefix): New proc.
2016-11-09 16:45:49 +01:00
proc_with_prefix user_defined_command_test {} {
global gdb_prompt
global valnum_re
gdb/testsuite: Introduce "proc_with_prefix" While adding new tests to gdb.base/commands.exp, I noticed that the file includes a bunch of individual testcases split into their own procedures, and that none have ever been adjusted to use with_test_prefix. Instead, each gdb_test/gdb_test_multiple/etc invocation takes care of including the procedure name in the test message, in order to make sure test messages are unique. Simon convinced me that using the procedure name as prefix is not that bad of an idea: https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2016-10/msg00020.html This commit adds an IMO simpler alternative to with_test_prefix_procname added by that patch -- a new "proc_with_prefix" convenience proc that is meant to be used in place of "proc", and then uses it in commands.exp. Procedures defined with this automatically run their bodies under with_test_prefix $proc_name. Here's a sample of the resulting gdb.sum diff: [...] -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: break factorial #3 -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: set value to 5 in test_command_prompt_position -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: if test in test_command_prompt_position -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: > OK in test_command_prompt_position +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: break factorial +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: set value to 5 +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: if test +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: > OK [...] gdb/testsuite/ChangeLog: 2016-11-09 Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com> * gdb.base/commands.exp (gdbvar_simple_if_test) (gdbvar_simple_while_test, gdbvar_complex_if_while_test) (progvar_simple_if_test, progvar_simple_while_test) (progvar_complex_if_while_test, if_while_breakpoint_command_test) (infrun_breakpoint_command_test, breakpoint_command_test) (user_defined_command_test, watchpoint_command_test) (test_command_prompt_position, deprecated_command_test) (bp_deleted_in_command, temporary_breakpoint_commands) (stray_arg0_test, source_file_with_indented_comment) (recursive_source_test, if_commands_test) (error_clears_commands_left, redefine_hook_test) (redefine_backtrace_test): Use proc_with_prefix. * lib/gdb.exp (proc_with_prefix): New proc.
2016-11-09 16:45:49 +01:00
gdb_test_no_output "set \$foo = 4" "set foo"
gdb/testsuite: Introduce "proc_with_prefix" While adding new tests to gdb.base/commands.exp, I noticed that the file includes a bunch of individual testcases split into their own procedures, and that none have ever been adjusted to use with_test_prefix. Instead, each gdb_test/gdb_test_multiple/etc invocation takes care of including the procedure name in the test message, in order to make sure test messages are unique. Simon convinced me that using the procedure name as prefix is not that bad of an idea: https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2016-10/msg00020.html This commit adds an IMO simpler alternative to with_test_prefix_procname added by that patch -- a new "proc_with_prefix" convenience proc that is meant to be used in place of "proc", and then uses it in commands.exp. Procedures defined with this automatically run their bodies under with_test_prefix $proc_name. Here's a sample of the resulting gdb.sum diff: [...] -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: break factorial #3 -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: set value to 5 in test_command_prompt_position -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: if test in test_command_prompt_position -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: > OK in test_command_prompt_position +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: break factorial +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: set value to 5 +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: if test +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: > OK [...] gdb/testsuite/ChangeLog: 2016-11-09 Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com> * gdb.base/commands.exp (gdbvar_simple_if_test) (gdbvar_simple_while_test, gdbvar_complex_if_while_test) (progvar_simple_if_test, progvar_simple_while_test) (progvar_complex_if_while_test, if_while_breakpoint_command_test) (infrun_breakpoint_command_test, breakpoint_command_test) (user_defined_command_test, watchpoint_command_test) (test_command_prompt_position, deprecated_command_test) (bp_deleted_in_command, temporary_breakpoint_commands) (stray_arg0_test, source_file_with_indented_comment) (recursive_source_test, if_commands_test) (error_clears_commands_left, redefine_hook_test) (redefine_backtrace_test): Use proc_with_prefix. * lib/gdb.exp (proc_with_prefix): New proc.
2016-11-09 16:45:49 +01:00
gdb_test_multiple "define mycommand" "define mycommand" {
-re "End with" {
pass "define mycommand"
}
gdb/testsuite: Introduce "proc_with_prefix" While adding new tests to gdb.base/commands.exp, I noticed that the file includes a bunch of individual testcases split into their own procedures, and that none have ever been adjusted to use with_test_prefix. Instead, each gdb_test/gdb_test_multiple/etc invocation takes care of including the procedure name in the test message, in order to make sure test messages are unique. Simon convinced me that using the procedure name as prefix is not that bad of an idea: https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2016-10/msg00020.html This commit adds an IMO simpler alternative to with_test_prefix_procname added by that patch -- a new "proc_with_prefix" convenience proc that is meant to be used in place of "proc", and then uses it in commands.exp. Procedures defined with this automatically run their bodies under with_test_prefix $proc_name. Here's a sample of the resulting gdb.sum diff: [...] -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: break factorial #3 -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: set value to 5 in test_command_prompt_position -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: if test in test_command_prompt_position -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: > OK in test_command_prompt_position +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: break factorial +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: set value to 5 +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: if test +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: > OK [...] gdb/testsuite/ChangeLog: 2016-11-09 Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com> * gdb.base/commands.exp (gdbvar_simple_if_test) (gdbvar_simple_while_test, gdbvar_complex_if_while_test) (progvar_simple_if_test, progvar_simple_while_test) (progvar_complex_if_while_test, if_while_breakpoint_command_test) (infrun_breakpoint_command_test, breakpoint_command_test) (user_defined_command_test, watchpoint_command_test) (test_command_prompt_position, deprecated_command_test) (bp_deleted_in_command, temporary_breakpoint_commands) (stray_arg0_test, source_file_with_indented_comment) (recursive_source_test, if_commands_test) (error_clears_commands_left, redefine_hook_test) (redefine_backtrace_test): Use proc_with_prefix. * lib/gdb.exp (proc_with_prefix): New proc.
2016-11-09 16:45:49 +01:00
}
# This test should alternate between 0xdeadbeef and 0xfeedface two times.
gdb_test \
[multi_line_input \
{while $arg0 > 0} \
{ set $arg0 -= 1} \
{ if ($arg0 % 2) == 1} \
{ p/x 0xdeadbeef} \
{ else} \
{ p/x 0xfeedface} \
{ end} \
{end} \
{end}] \
"" \
"enter commands"
global decimal
set valnum_re "\\\$$decimal"
gdb_test \
{mycommand $foo} \
[multi_line \
"$valnum_re = 0xdeadbeef" \
"$valnum_re = 0xfeedface" \
"$valnum_re = 0xdeadbeef" \
"$valnum_re = 0xfeedface"] \
"execute user-defined command"
gdb_test "show user mycommand" \
" while \\\$arg0.*set.* if \\\(\\\$arg0.*p/x.* else\[^\n\].*p/x.* end\[^\n\].* end\[^\n\].*" \
gdb/testsuite: Introduce "proc_with_prefix" While adding new tests to gdb.base/commands.exp, I noticed that the file includes a bunch of individual testcases split into their own procedures, and that none have ever been adjusted to use with_test_prefix. Instead, each gdb_test/gdb_test_multiple/etc invocation takes care of including the procedure name in the test message, in order to make sure test messages are unique. Simon convinced me that using the procedure name as prefix is not that bad of an idea: https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2016-10/msg00020.html This commit adds an IMO simpler alternative to with_test_prefix_procname added by that patch -- a new "proc_with_prefix" convenience proc that is meant to be used in place of "proc", and then uses it in commands.exp. Procedures defined with this automatically run their bodies under with_test_prefix $proc_name. Here's a sample of the resulting gdb.sum diff: [...] -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: break factorial #3 -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: set value to 5 in test_command_prompt_position -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: if test in test_command_prompt_position -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: > OK in test_command_prompt_position +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: break factorial +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: set value to 5 +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: if test +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: > OK [...] gdb/testsuite/ChangeLog: 2016-11-09 Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com> * gdb.base/commands.exp (gdbvar_simple_if_test) (gdbvar_simple_while_test, gdbvar_complex_if_while_test) (progvar_simple_if_test, progvar_simple_while_test) (progvar_complex_if_while_test, if_while_breakpoint_command_test) (infrun_breakpoint_command_test, breakpoint_command_test) (user_defined_command_test, watchpoint_command_test) (test_command_prompt_position, deprecated_command_test) (bp_deleted_in_command, temporary_breakpoint_commands) (stray_arg0_test, source_file_with_indented_comment) (recursive_source_test, if_commands_test) (error_clears_commands_left, redefine_hook_test) (redefine_backtrace_test): Use proc_with_prefix. * lib/gdb.exp (proc_with_prefix): New proc.
2016-11-09 16:45:49 +01:00
"display user command"
# Create and test a user-defined command with an empty body.
gdb/testsuite: Introduce "proc_with_prefix" While adding new tests to gdb.base/commands.exp, I noticed that the file includes a bunch of individual testcases split into their own procedures, and that none have ever been adjusted to use with_test_prefix. Instead, each gdb_test/gdb_test_multiple/etc invocation takes care of including the procedure name in the test message, in order to make sure test messages are unique. Simon convinced me that using the procedure name as prefix is not that bad of an idea: https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2016-10/msg00020.html This commit adds an IMO simpler alternative to with_test_prefix_procname added by that patch -- a new "proc_with_prefix" convenience proc that is meant to be used in place of "proc", and then uses it in commands.exp. Procedures defined with this automatically run their bodies under with_test_prefix $proc_name. Here's a sample of the resulting gdb.sum diff: [...] -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: break factorial #3 -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: set value to 5 in test_command_prompt_position -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: if test in test_command_prompt_position -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: > OK in test_command_prompt_position +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: break factorial +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: set value to 5 +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: if test +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: > OK [...] gdb/testsuite/ChangeLog: 2016-11-09 Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com> * gdb.base/commands.exp (gdbvar_simple_if_test) (gdbvar_simple_while_test, gdbvar_complex_if_while_test) (progvar_simple_if_test, progvar_simple_while_test) (progvar_complex_if_while_test, if_while_breakpoint_command_test) (infrun_breakpoint_command_test, breakpoint_command_test) (user_defined_command_test, watchpoint_command_test) (test_command_prompt_position, deprecated_command_test) (bp_deleted_in_command, temporary_breakpoint_commands) (stray_arg0_test, source_file_with_indented_comment) (recursive_source_test, if_commands_test) (error_clears_commands_left, redefine_hook_test) (redefine_backtrace_test): Use proc_with_prefix. * lib/gdb.exp (proc_with_prefix): New proc.
2016-11-09 16:45:49 +01:00
gdb_test_multiple "define myemptycommand" "define myemptycommand" {
-re "End with" {
pass "define myemptycommand"
}
gdb/testsuite: Introduce "proc_with_prefix" While adding new tests to gdb.base/commands.exp, I noticed that the file includes a bunch of individual testcases split into their own procedures, and that none have ever been adjusted to use with_test_prefix. Instead, each gdb_test/gdb_test_multiple/etc invocation takes care of including the procedure name in the test message, in order to make sure test messages are unique. Simon convinced me that using the procedure name as prefix is not that bad of an idea: https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2016-10/msg00020.html This commit adds an IMO simpler alternative to with_test_prefix_procname added by that patch -- a new "proc_with_prefix" convenience proc that is meant to be used in place of "proc", and then uses it in commands.exp. Procedures defined with this automatically run their bodies under with_test_prefix $proc_name. Here's a sample of the resulting gdb.sum diff: [...] -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: break factorial #3 -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: set value to 5 in test_command_prompt_position -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: if test in test_command_prompt_position -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: > OK in test_command_prompt_position +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: break factorial +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: set value to 5 +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: if test +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: > OK [...] gdb/testsuite/ChangeLog: 2016-11-09 Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com> * gdb.base/commands.exp (gdbvar_simple_if_test) (gdbvar_simple_while_test, gdbvar_complex_if_while_test) (progvar_simple_if_test, progvar_simple_while_test) (progvar_complex_if_while_test, if_while_breakpoint_command_test) (infrun_breakpoint_command_test, breakpoint_command_test) (user_defined_command_test, watchpoint_command_test) (test_command_prompt_position, deprecated_command_test) (bp_deleted_in_command, temporary_breakpoint_commands) (stray_arg0_test, source_file_with_indented_comment) (recursive_source_test, if_commands_test) (error_clears_commands_left, redefine_hook_test) (redefine_backtrace_test): Use proc_with_prefix. * lib/gdb.exp (proc_with_prefix): New proc.
2016-11-09 16:45:49 +01:00
}
gdb_test "end" \
"" \
"end definition of user-defined command with empty body"
gdb_test_no_output "myemptycommand" \
gdb/testsuite: Introduce "proc_with_prefix" While adding new tests to gdb.base/commands.exp, I noticed that the file includes a bunch of individual testcases split into their own procedures, and that none have ever been adjusted to use with_test_prefix. Instead, each gdb_test/gdb_test_multiple/etc invocation takes care of including the procedure name in the test message, in order to make sure test messages are unique. Simon convinced me that using the procedure name as prefix is not that bad of an idea: https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2016-10/msg00020.html This commit adds an IMO simpler alternative to with_test_prefix_procname added by that patch -- a new "proc_with_prefix" convenience proc that is meant to be used in place of "proc", and then uses it in commands.exp. Procedures defined with this automatically run their bodies under with_test_prefix $proc_name. Here's a sample of the resulting gdb.sum diff: [...] -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: break factorial #3 -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: set value to 5 in test_command_prompt_position -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: if test in test_command_prompt_position -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: > OK in test_command_prompt_position +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: break factorial +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: set value to 5 +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: if test +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: > OK [...] gdb/testsuite/ChangeLog: 2016-11-09 Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com> * gdb.base/commands.exp (gdbvar_simple_if_test) (gdbvar_simple_while_test, gdbvar_complex_if_while_test) (progvar_simple_if_test, progvar_simple_while_test) (progvar_complex_if_while_test, if_while_breakpoint_command_test) (infrun_breakpoint_command_test, breakpoint_command_test) (user_defined_command_test, watchpoint_command_test) (test_command_prompt_position, deprecated_command_test) (bp_deleted_in_command, temporary_breakpoint_commands) (stray_arg0_test, source_file_with_indented_comment) (recursive_source_test, if_commands_test) (error_clears_commands_left, redefine_hook_test) (redefine_backtrace_test): Use proc_with_prefix. * lib/gdb.exp (proc_with_prefix): New proc.
2016-11-09 16:45:49 +01:00
"execute user-defined empty command"
gdb_test "show user" \
"User command \"myemptycommand.*" \
gdb/testsuite: Introduce "proc_with_prefix" While adding new tests to gdb.base/commands.exp, I noticed that the file includes a bunch of individual testcases split into their own procedures, and that none have ever been adjusted to use with_test_prefix. Instead, each gdb_test/gdb_test_multiple/etc invocation takes care of including the procedure name in the test message, in order to make sure test messages are unique. Simon convinced me that using the procedure name as prefix is not that bad of an idea: https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2016-10/msg00020.html This commit adds an IMO simpler alternative to with_test_prefix_procname added by that patch -- a new "proc_with_prefix" convenience proc that is meant to be used in place of "proc", and then uses it in commands.exp. Procedures defined with this automatically run their bodies under with_test_prefix $proc_name. Here's a sample of the resulting gdb.sum diff: [...] -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: break factorial #3 -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: set value to 5 in test_command_prompt_position -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: if test in test_command_prompt_position -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: > OK in test_command_prompt_position +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: break factorial +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: set value to 5 +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: if test +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: > OK [...] gdb/testsuite/ChangeLog: 2016-11-09 Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com> * gdb.base/commands.exp (gdbvar_simple_if_test) (gdbvar_simple_while_test, gdbvar_complex_if_while_test) (progvar_simple_if_test, progvar_simple_while_test) (progvar_complex_if_while_test, if_while_breakpoint_command_test) (infrun_breakpoint_command_test, breakpoint_command_test) (user_defined_command_test, watchpoint_command_test) (test_command_prompt_position, deprecated_command_test) (bp_deleted_in_command, temporary_breakpoint_commands) (stray_arg0_test, source_file_with_indented_comment) (recursive_source_test, if_commands_test) (error_clears_commands_left, redefine_hook_test) (redefine_backtrace_test): Use proc_with_prefix. * lib/gdb.exp (proc_with_prefix): New proc.
2016-11-09 16:45:49 +01:00
"display empty command in command list"
gdb_test "show user myemptycommand" \
"User command \"myemptycommand.*" \
gdb/testsuite: Introduce "proc_with_prefix" While adding new tests to gdb.base/commands.exp, I noticed that the file includes a bunch of individual testcases split into their own procedures, and that none have ever been adjusted to use with_test_prefix. Instead, each gdb_test/gdb_test_multiple/etc invocation takes care of including the procedure name in the test message, in order to make sure test messages are unique. Simon convinced me that using the procedure name as prefix is not that bad of an idea: https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2016-10/msg00020.html This commit adds an IMO simpler alternative to with_test_prefix_procname added by that patch -- a new "proc_with_prefix" convenience proc that is meant to be used in place of "proc", and then uses it in commands.exp. Procedures defined with this automatically run their bodies under with_test_prefix $proc_name. Here's a sample of the resulting gdb.sum diff: [...] -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: break factorial #3 -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: set value to 5 in test_command_prompt_position -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: if test in test_command_prompt_position -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: > OK in test_command_prompt_position +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: break factorial +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: set value to 5 +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: if test +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: > OK [...] gdb/testsuite/ChangeLog: 2016-11-09 Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com> * gdb.base/commands.exp (gdbvar_simple_if_test) (gdbvar_simple_while_test, gdbvar_complex_if_while_test) (progvar_simple_if_test, progvar_simple_while_test) (progvar_complex_if_while_test, if_while_breakpoint_command_test) (infrun_breakpoint_command_test, breakpoint_command_test) (user_defined_command_test, watchpoint_command_test) (test_command_prompt_position, deprecated_command_test) (bp_deleted_in_command, temporary_breakpoint_commands) (stray_arg0_test, source_file_with_indented_comment) (recursive_source_test, if_commands_test) (error_clears_commands_left, redefine_hook_test) (redefine_backtrace_test): Use proc_with_prefix. * lib/gdb.exp (proc_with_prefix): New proc.
2016-11-09 16:45:49 +01:00
"display user-defined empty command"
}
gdb/testsuite: Introduce "proc_with_prefix" While adding new tests to gdb.base/commands.exp, I noticed that the file includes a bunch of individual testcases split into their own procedures, and that none have ever been adjusted to use with_test_prefix. Instead, each gdb_test/gdb_test_multiple/etc invocation takes care of including the procedure name in the test message, in order to make sure test messages are unique. Simon convinced me that using the procedure name as prefix is not that bad of an idea: https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2016-10/msg00020.html This commit adds an IMO simpler alternative to with_test_prefix_procname added by that patch -- a new "proc_with_prefix" convenience proc that is meant to be used in place of "proc", and then uses it in commands.exp. Procedures defined with this automatically run their bodies under with_test_prefix $proc_name. Here's a sample of the resulting gdb.sum diff: [...] -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: break factorial #3 -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: set value to 5 in test_command_prompt_position -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: if test in test_command_prompt_position -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: > OK in test_command_prompt_position +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: break factorial +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: set value to 5 +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: if test +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: > OK [...] gdb/testsuite/ChangeLog: 2016-11-09 Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com> * gdb.base/commands.exp (gdbvar_simple_if_test) (gdbvar_simple_while_test, gdbvar_complex_if_while_test) (progvar_simple_if_test, progvar_simple_while_test) (progvar_complex_if_while_test, if_while_breakpoint_command_test) (infrun_breakpoint_command_test, breakpoint_command_test) (user_defined_command_test, watchpoint_command_test) (test_command_prompt_position, deprecated_command_test) (bp_deleted_in_command, temporary_breakpoint_commands) (stray_arg0_test, source_file_with_indented_comment) (recursive_source_test, if_commands_test) (error_clears_commands_left, redefine_hook_test) (redefine_backtrace_test): Use proc_with_prefix. * lib/gdb.exp (proc_with_prefix): New proc.
2016-11-09 16:45:49 +01:00
proc_with_prefix watchpoint_command_test {} {
1999-06-28 18:06:02 +02:00
global gdb_prompt
# Disable hardware watchpoints if necessary.
if [target_info exists gdb,no_hardware_watchpoints] {
gdb_test_no_output "set can-use-hw-watchpoints 0" ""
}
runto_or_return factorial
1999-06-28 18:06:02 +02:00
delete_breakpoints
# Verify that we can create a watchpoint, and give it a commands
# list that continues the inferior. We set the watchpoint on a
# local variable, too, so that it self-deletes when the watched
# data goes out of scope.
#
# What should happen is: Each time the watchpoint triggers, it
# continues the inferior. Eventually, the watchpoint will self-
# delete, when the watched variable is out of scope. But by that
# time, the inferior should have exited. GDB shouldn't crash or
# anything untoward as a result of this.
#
set wp_id -1
gdb_test_multiple "watch local_var" "watch local_var" {
-re "\[Ww\]atchpoint (\[0-9\]*): local_var.*$gdb_prompt $" {
1999-06-28 18:06:02 +02:00
set wp_id $expect_out(1,string)
pass "watch local_var"
}
}
1999-04-26 20:34:20 +02:00
1999-06-28 18:06:02 +02:00
if {$wp_id == -1} {return}
gdb_test_multiple "commands $wp_id" "begin commands on watch" {
-re "Type commands for breakpoint.*, one per line.*>$" {
pass "begin commands on watch"
}
1999-06-28 18:06:02 +02:00
}
# See the 'No symbol "value...' fail below. This command will
# fail if it's executed in the wrong frame. If adjusting the
# test, make sure this property holds.
gdb_test_multiple "print value" "add print command to watch" {
-re ">$" {
pass "add print command to watch"
}
1999-06-28 18:06:02 +02:00
}
gdb_test_multiple "continue" "add continue command to watch" {
-re ">$" {
pass "add continue command to watch"
}
1999-06-28 18:06:02 +02:00
}
gdb_test "end" \
"" \
"end commands on watch"
set test "continue with watch"
set lno_1 [gdb_get_line_number "commands.exp: hw local_var out of scope" "run.c"]
set lno_2 [gdb_get_line_number "commands.exp: local_var out of scope" "run.c"]
gdb_test_multiple "continue" "$test" {
-re "No symbol \"value\" in current context.\r\n$gdb_prompt $" {
# Happens if GDB actually runs the watchpoints commands,
# even though the watchpoint was deleted for not being in
# scope.
fail $test
}
-re "Continuing.*\[Ww\]atchpoint $wp_id deleted because the program has left the block in.*which its expression is valid.*run.c:($lno_1|$lno_2).*$gdb_prompt $" {
pass $test
}
}
1999-06-28 18:06:02 +02:00
}
1999-04-26 20:34:20 +02:00
gdb/testsuite: Introduce "proc_with_prefix" While adding new tests to gdb.base/commands.exp, I noticed that the file includes a bunch of individual testcases split into their own procedures, and that none have ever been adjusted to use with_test_prefix. Instead, each gdb_test/gdb_test_multiple/etc invocation takes care of including the procedure name in the test message, in order to make sure test messages are unique. Simon convinced me that using the procedure name as prefix is not that bad of an idea: https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2016-10/msg00020.html This commit adds an IMO simpler alternative to with_test_prefix_procname added by that patch -- a new "proc_with_prefix" convenience proc that is meant to be used in place of "proc", and then uses it in commands.exp. Procedures defined with this automatically run their bodies under with_test_prefix $proc_name. Here's a sample of the resulting gdb.sum diff: [...] -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: break factorial #3 -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: set value to 5 in test_command_prompt_position -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: if test in test_command_prompt_position -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: > OK in test_command_prompt_position +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: break factorial +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: set value to 5 +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: if test +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: > OK [...] gdb/testsuite/ChangeLog: 2016-11-09 Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com> * gdb.base/commands.exp (gdbvar_simple_if_test) (gdbvar_simple_while_test, gdbvar_complex_if_while_test) (progvar_simple_if_test, progvar_simple_while_test) (progvar_complex_if_while_test, if_while_breakpoint_command_test) (infrun_breakpoint_command_test, breakpoint_command_test) (user_defined_command_test, watchpoint_command_test) (test_command_prompt_position, deprecated_command_test) (bp_deleted_in_command, temporary_breakpoint_commands) (stray_arg0_test, source_file_with_indented_comment) (recursive_source_test, if_commands_test) (error_clears_commands_left, redefine_hook_test) (redefine_backtrace_test): Use proc_with_prefix. * lib/gdb.exp (proc_with_prefix): New proc.
2016-11-09 16:45:49 +01:00
proc_with_prefix test_command_prompt_position {} {
1999-04-26 20:34:20 +02:00
global gdb_prompt
global valnum_re
runto_or_return factorial
1999-04-26 20:34:20 +02:00
# Don't depend upon argument passing, since most simulators don't
# currently support it. Bash value variable to be what we want.
1999-04-26 20:34:20 +02:00
delete_breakpoints
gdb/testsuite: Introduce "proc_with_prefix" While adding new tests to gdb.base/commands.exp, I noticed that the file includes a bunch of individual testcases split into their own procedures, and that none have ever been adjusted to use with_test_prefix. Instead, each gdb_test/gdb_test_multiple/etc invocation takes care of including the procedure name in the test message, in order to make sure test messages are unique. Simon convinced me that using the procedure name as prefix is not that bad of an idea: https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2016-10/msg00020.html This commit adds an IMO simpler alternative to with_test_prefix_procname added by that patch -- a new "proc_with_prefix" convenience proc that is meant to be used in place of "proc", and then uses it in commands.exp. Procedures defined with this automatically run their bodies under with_test_prefix $proc_name. Here's a sample of the resulting gdb.sum diff: [...] -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: break factorial #3 -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: set value to 5 in test_command_prompt_position -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: if test in test_command_prompt_position -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: > OK in test_command_prompt_position +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: break factorial +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: set value to 5 +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: if test +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: > OK [...] gdb/testsuite/ChangeLog: 2016-11-09 Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com> * gdb.base/commands.exp (gdbvar_simple_if_test) (gdbvar_simple_while_test, gdbvar_complex_if_while_test) (progvar_simple_if_test, progvar_simple_while_test) (progvar_complex_if_while_test, if_while_breakpoint_command_test) (infrun_breakpoint_command_test, breakpoint_command_test) (user_defined_command_test, watchpoint_command_test) (test_command_prompt_position, deprecated_command_test) (bp_deleted_in_command, temporary_breakpoint_commands) (stray_arg0_test, source_file_with_indented_comment) (recursive_source_test, if_commands_test) (error_clears_commands_left, redefine_hook_test) (redefine_backtrace_test): Use proc_with_prefix. * lib/gdb.exp (proc_with_prefix): New proc.
2016-11-09 16:45:49 +01:00
gdb_test "break factorial" "Breakpoint.*at.*"
gdb_test "p value=5" ".*" "set value to 5"
1999-04-26 20:34:20 +02:00
# All this test should do is print 0xdeadbeef once.
gdb_test \
[multi_line_input \
{if value == 1} \
{ p/x 0xfeedface} \
{else} \
{ p/x 0xdeadbeef} \
{end}] \
"$valnum_re = 0xdeadbeef" \
"if test"
# Now let's test for the correct position of the '>' in gdb's
# prompt for commands. It should be at the beginning of the line,
# and not after one space.
1999-04-26 20:34:20 +02:00
set test "> OK"
gdb_test_multiple "commands" $test {
-re "Type commands.*End with.*\[\r\n\]>$" {
gdb_test_multiple "printf \"Now the value is %d\\n\", value" $test {
-re "^printf.*value\r\n>$" {
gdb_test_multiple "end" $test {
-re "^end\r\n$gdb_prompt $" {
pass $test
}
}
}
}
}
}
1999-04-26 20:34:20 +02:00
}
gdb/testsuite: Introduce "proc_with_prefix" While adding new tests to gdb.base/commands.exp, I noticed that the file includes a bunch of individual testcases split into their own procedures, and that none have ever been adjusted to use with_test_prefix. Instead, each gdb_test/gdb_test_multiple/etc invocation takes care of including the procedure name in the test message, in order to make sure test messages are unique. Simon convinced me that using the procedure name as prefix is not that bad of an idea: https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2016-10/msg00020.html This commit adds an IMO simpler alternative to with_test_prefix_procname added by that patch -- a new "proc_with_prefix" convenience proc that is meant to be used in place of "proc", and then uses it in commands.exp. Procedures defined with this automatically run their bodies under with_test_prefix $proc_name. Here's a sample of the resulting gdb.sum diff: [...] -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: break factorial #3 -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: set value to 5 in test_command_prompt_position -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: if test in test_command_prompt_position -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: > OK in test_command_prompt_position +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: break factorial +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: set value to 5 +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: if test +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: > OK [...] gdb/testsuite/ChangeLog: 2016-11-09 Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com> * gdb.base/commands.exp (gdbvar_simple_if_test) (gdbvar_simple_while_test, gdbvar_complex_if_while_test) (progvar_simple_if_test, progvar_simple_while_test) (progvar_complex_if_while_test, if_while_breakpoint_command_test) (infrun_breakpoint_command_test, breakpoint_command_test) (user_defined_command_test, watchpoint_command_test) (test_command_prompt_position, deprecated_command_test) (bp_deleted_in_command, temporary_breakpoint_commands) (stray_arg0_test, source_file_with_indented_comment) (recursive_source_test, if_commands_test) (error_clears_commands_left, redefine_hook_test) (redefine_backtrace_test): Use proc_with_prefix. * lib/gdb.exp (proc_with_prefix): New proc.
2016-11-09 16:45:49 +01:00
proc_with_prefix deprecated_command_test {} {
gdb_test "maintenance deprecate blah" "Can't find command.*" \
"tried to deprecate non-existing command"
2010-06-01 Michael Snyder <msnyder@vmware.com> * gdb.base/arithmet.exp: Use gdb_test_no_output. * gdb.base/arrayidx.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/attach.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/auxv.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/bigcre.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/break-always.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/break-interp.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/break.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/breakpoint-shadow.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/call-ar-st.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/call-sc.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/call-signal-resume.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/callfuncs.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/catch-syscall.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/charset.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/code-expr.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/commands.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/cond-expr.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/condbreak.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/cursal.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/cvexpr.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/default.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/del.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/detach.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/display.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/ena-dis-br.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/eval-skip.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/foll-fork.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/foll-vfork.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/frame-args.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/funcargs.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/gcore-buffer-overflow.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/gdbvars.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/help.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/ifelse.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/included.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/list.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/macscp.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/maint.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/multi-fork.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/overlays.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/page.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/pending.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/pointers.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/pr11022.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/prelink.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/printcmds.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/psymtab.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/randomize.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/relational.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/relocate.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/remote.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/sepdebug.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/set-lang-auto.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/setshow.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/setvar.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/signals.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/signull.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/sigstep.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/sizeof.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/solib-disc.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/store.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/structs.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/structs2.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/subst.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/term.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/trace-commands.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/unwindonsignal.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/valgrind-db-attach.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/varargs.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/watch-cond.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/watch_thread_num.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/watchpoint-cond-gone.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/watchpoint.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/whatis-exp.exp: Ditto.
2010-06-01 23:29:21 +02:00
gdb_test_no_output "maintenance deprecate p \"new_p\"" "maintenance deprecate p \"new_p\" /1/"
gdb_test "p 5" \
"Warning: 'p', an alias for the command 'print' is deprecated.*Use 'new_p'.*" \
"p deprecated warning, with replacement"
gdb_test "p 5" ".\[0-9\]* = 5.*" "Deprecated warning goes away /1/"
2010-06-01 Michael Snyder <msnyder@vmware.com> * gdb.base/arithmet.exp: Use gdb_test_no_output. * gdb.base/arrayidx.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/attach.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/auxv.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/bigcre.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/break-always.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/break-interp.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/break.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/breakpoint-shadow.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/call-ar-st.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/call-sc.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/call-signal-resume.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/callfuncs.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/catch-syscall.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/charset.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/code-expr.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/commands.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/cond-expr.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/condbreak.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/cursal.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/cvexpr.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/default.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/del.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/detach.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/display.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/ena-dis-br.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/eval-skip.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/foll-fork.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/foll-vfork.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/frame-args.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/funcargs.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/gcore-buffer-overflow.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/gdbvars.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/help.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/ifelse.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/included.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/list.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/macscp.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/maint.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/multi-fork.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/overlays.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/page.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/pending.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/pointers.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/pr11022.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/prelink.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/printcmds.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/psymtab.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/randomize.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/relational.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/relocate.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/remote.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/sepdebug.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/set-lang-auto.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/setshow.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/setvar.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/signals.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/signull.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/sigstep.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/sizeof.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/solib-disc.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/store.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/structs.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/structs2.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/subst.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/term.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/trace-commands.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/unwindonsignal.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/valgrind-db-attach.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/varargs.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/watch-cond.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/watch_thread_num.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/watchpoint-cond-gone.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/watchpoint.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/whatis-exp.exp: Ditto.
2010-06-01 23:29:21 +02:00
gdb_test_no_output "maintenance deprecate p \"new_p\"" "maintenance deprecate p \"new_p\" /2/"
gdb_test_no_output "maintenance deprecate print \"new_print\""
gdb_test "p 5" \
"Warning: command 'print' \\(p\\) is deprecated.*Use 'new_print'.*" \
"both alias and command are deprecated"
gdb_test "p 5" ".\[0-9\]* = 5.*" "Deprecated warning goes away /2/"
2010-06-01 Michael Snyder <msnyder@vmware.com> * gdb.base/arithmet.exp: Use gdb_test_no_output. * gdb.base/arrayidx.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/attach.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/auxv.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/bigcre.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/break-always.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/break-interp.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/break.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/breakpoint-shadow.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/call-ar-st.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/call-sc.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/call-signal-resume.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/callfuncs.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/catch-syscall.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/charset.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/code-expr.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/commands.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/cond-expr.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/condbreak.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/cursal.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/cvexpr.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/default.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/del.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/detach.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/display.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/ena-dis-br.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/eval-skip.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/foll-fork.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/foll-vfork.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/frame-args.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/funcargs.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/gcore-buffer-overflow.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/gdbvars.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/help.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/ifelse.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/included.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/list.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/macscp.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/maint.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/multi-fork.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/overlays.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/page.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/pending.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/pointers.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/pr11022.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/prelink.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/printcmds.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/psymtab.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/randomize.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/relational.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/relocate.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/remote.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/sepdebug.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/set-lang-auto.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/setshow.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/setvar.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/signals.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/signull.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/sigstep.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/sizeof.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/solib-disc.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/store.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/structs.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/structs2.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/subst.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/term.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/trace-commands.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/unwindonsignal.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/valgrind-db-attach.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/varargs.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/watch-cond.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/watch_thread_num.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/watchpoint-cond-gone.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/watchpoint.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/whatis-exp.exp: Ditto.
2010-06-01 23:29:21 +02:00
gdb_test_no_output "maintenance deprecate set remote memory-read-packet-size \"srm\" " \
"deprecate long command /1/"
gdb_test "set remote memory-read-packet-size" \
"Warning: command 'set remote memory-read-packet-size' is deprecated.*Use 'srm'.*" \
"long command deprecated /1/"
2010-06-01 Michael Snyder <msnyder@vmware.com> * gdb.base/arithmet.exp: Use gdb_test_no_output. * gdb.base/arrayidx.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/attach.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/auxv.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/bigcre.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/break-always.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/break-interp.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/break.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/breakpoint-shadow.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/call-ar-st.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/call-sc.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/call-signal-resume.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/callfuncs.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/catch-syscall.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/charset.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/code-expr.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/commands.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/cond-expr.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/condbreak.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/cursal.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/cvexpr.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/default.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/del.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/detach.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/display.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/ena-dis-br.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/eval-skip.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/foll-fork.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/foll-vfork.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/frame-args.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/funcargs.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/gcore-buffer-overflow.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/gdbvars.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/help.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/ifelse.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/included.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/list.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/macscp.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/maint.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/multi-fork.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/overlays.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/page.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/pending.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/pointers.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/pr11022.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/prelink.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/printcmds.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/psymtab.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/randomize.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/relational.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/relocate.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/remote.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/sepdebug.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/set-lang-auto.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/setshow.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/setvar.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/signals.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/signull.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/sigstep.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/sizeof.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/solib-disc.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/store.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/structs.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/structs2.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/subst.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/term.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/trace-commands.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/unwindonsignal.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/valgrind-db-attach.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/varargs.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/watch-cond.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/watch_thread_num.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/watchpoint-cond-gone.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/watchpoint.exp: Ditto. * gdb.base/whatis-exp.exp: Ditto.
2010-06-01 23:29:21 +02:00
gdb_test_no_output "maintenance deprecate set remote memory-read-packet-size" \
"deprecate long command /2/"
gdb_test "set remote memory-read-packet-size" \
"Warning: command 'set remote memory-read-packet-size' is deprecated.*No alternative known.*" \
"long command deprecated with no alternative /2/"
gdb_test "maintenance deprecate" \
"\"maintenance deprecate\".*" \
"deprecate with no arguments"
}
gdb/testsuite: Introduce "proc_with_prefix" While adding new tests to gdb.base/commands.exp, I noticed that the file includes a bunch of individual testcases split into their own procedures, and that none have ever been adjusted to use with_test_prefix. Instead, each gdb_test/gdb_test_multiple/etc invocation takes care of including the procedure name in the test message, in order to make sure test messages are unique. Simon convinced me that using the procedure name as prefix is not that bad of an idea: https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2016-10/msg00020.html This commit adds an IMO simpler alternative to with_test_prefix_procname added by that patch -- a new "proc_with_prefix" convenience proc that is meant to be used in place of "proc", and then uses it in commands.exp. Procedures defined with this automatically run their bodies under with_test_prefix $proc_name. Here's a sample of the resulting gdb.sum diff: [...] -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: break factorial #3 -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: set value to 5 in test_command_prompt_position -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: if test in test_command_prompt_position -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: > OK in test_command_prompt_position +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: break factorial +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: set value to 5 +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: if test +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: > OK [...] gdb/testsuite/ChangeLog: 2016-11-09 Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com> * gdb.base/commands.exp (gdbvar_simple_if_test) (gdbvar_simple_while_test, gdbvar_complex_if_while_test) (progvar_simple_if_test, progvar_simple_while_test) (progvar_complex_if_while_test, if_while_breakpoint_command_test) (infrun_breakpoint_command_test, breakpoint_command_test) (user_defined_command_test, watchpoint_command_test) (test_command_prompt_position, deprecated_command_test) (bp_deleted_in_command, temporary_breakpoint_commands) (stray_arg0_test, source_file_with_indented_comment) (recursive_source_test, if_commands_test) (error_clears_commands_left, redefine_hook_test) (redefine_backtrace_test): Use proc_with_prefix. * lib/gdb.exp (proc_with_prefix): New proc.
2016-11-09 16:45:49 +01:00
proc_with_prefix bp_deleted_in_command_test {} {
global gdb_prompt
delete_breakpoints
# Create a breakpoint, and associate a command-list to it, with
# one command that deletes this breakpoint.
gdb_test "break factorial" \
gdb/testsuite: Introduce "proc_with_prefix" While adding new tests to gdb.base/commands.exp, I noticed that the file includes a bunch of individual testcases split into their own procedures, and that none have ever been adjusted to use with_test_prefix. Instead, each gdb_test/gdb_test_multiple/etc invocation takes care of including the procedure name in the test message, in order to make sure test messages are unique. Simon convinced me that using the procedure name as prefix is not that bad of an idea: https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2016-10/msg00020.html This commit adds an IMO simpler alternative to with_test_prefix_procname added by that patch -- a new "proc_with_prefix" convenience proc that is meant to be used in place of "proc", and then uses it in commands.exp. Procedures defined with this automatically run their bodies under with_test_prefix $proc_name. Here's a sample of the resulting gdb.sum diff: [...] -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: break factorial #3 -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: set value to 5 in test_command_prompt_position -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: if test in test_command_prompt_position -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: > OK in test_command_prompt_position +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: break factorial +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: set value to 5 +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: if test +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: > OK [...] gdb/testsuite/ChangeLog: 2016-11-09 Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com> * gdb.base/commands.exp (gdbvar_simple_if_test) (gdbvar_simple_while_test, gdbvar_complex_if_while_test) (progvar_simple_if_test, progvar_simple_while_test) (progvar_complex_if_while_test, if_while_breakpoint_command_test) (infrun_breakpoint_command_test, breakpoint_command_test) (user_defined_command_test, watchpoint_command_test) (test_command_prompt_position, deprecated_command_test) (bp_deleted_in_command, temporary_breakpoint_commands) (stray_arg0_test, source_file_with_indented_comment) (recursive_source_test, if_commands_test) (error_clears_commands_left, redefine_hook_test) (redefine_backtrace_test): Use proc_with_prefix. * lib/gdb.exp (proc_with_prefix): New proc.
2016-11-09 16:45:49 +01:00
"Breakpoint \[0-9\]+ at .*: file .*run.c, line \[0-9\]+\."
gdb/testsuite: Introduce "proc_with_prefix" While adding new tests to gdb.base/commands.exp, I noticed that the file includes a bunch of individual testcases split into their own procedures, and that none have ever been adjusted to use with_test_prefix. Instead, each gdb_test/gdb_test_multiple/etc invocation takes care of including the procedure name in the test message, in order to make sure test messages are unique. Simon convinced me that using the procedure name as prefix is not that bad of an idea: https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2016-10/msg00020.html This commit adds an IMO simpler alternative to with_test_prefix_procname added by that patch -- a new "proc_with_prefix" convenience proc that is meant to be used in place of "proc", and then uses it in commands.exp. Procedures defined with this automatically run their bodies under with_test_prefix $proc_name. Here's a sample of the resulting gdb.sum diff: [...] -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: break factorial #3 -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: set value to 5 in test_command_prompt_position -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: if test in test_command_prompt_position -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: > OK in test_command_prompt_position +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: break factorial +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: set value to 5 +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: if test +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: > OK [...] gdb/testsuite/ChangeLog: 2016-11-09 Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com> * gdb.base/commands.exp (gdbvar_simple_if_test) (gdbvar_simple_while_test, gdbvar_complex_if_while_test) (progvar_simple_if_test, progvar_simple_while_test) (progvar_complex_if_while_test, if_while_breakpoint_command_test) (infrun_breakpoint_command_test, breakpoint_command_test) (user_defined_command_test, watchpoint_command_test) (test_command_prompt_position, deprecated_command_test) (bp_deleted_in_command, temporary_breakpoint_commands) (stray_arg0_test, source_file_with_indented_comment) (recursive_source_test, if_commands_test) (error_clears_commands_left, redefine_hook_test) (redefine_backtrace_test): Use proc_with_prefix. * lib/gdb.exp (proc_with_prefix): New proc.
2016-11-09 16:45:49 +01:00
gdb_test_multiple "commands" "begin commands" {
-re "Type commands for breakpoint.*>$" {
gdb/testsuite: Introduce "proc_with_prefix" While adding new tests to gdb.base/commands.exp, I noticed that the file includes a bunch of individual testcases split into their own procedures, and that none have ever been adjusted to use with_test_prefix. Instead, each gdb_test/gdb_test_multiple/etc invocation takes care of including the procedure name in the test message, in order to make sure test messages are unique. Simon convinced me that using the procedure name as prefix is not that bad of an idea: https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2016-10/msg00020.html This commit adds an IMO simpler alternative to with_test_prefix_procname added by that patch -- a new "proc_with_prefix" convenience proc that is meant to be used in place of "proc", and then uses it in commands.exp. Procedures defined with this automatically run their bodies under with_test_prefix $proc_name. Here's a sample of the resulting gdb.sum diff: [...] -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: break factorial #3 -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: set value to 5 in test_command_prompt_position -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: if test in test_command_prompt_position -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: > OK in test_command_prompt_position +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: break factorial +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: set value to 5 +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: if test +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: > OK [...] gdb/testsuite/ChangeLog: 2016-11-09 Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com> * gdb.base/commands.exp (gdbvar_simple_if_test) (gdbvar_simple_while_test, gdbvar_complex_if_while_test) (progvar_simple_if_test, progvar_simple_while_test) (progvar_complex_if_while_test, if_while_breakpoint_command_test) (infrun_breakpoint_command_test, breakpoint_command_test) (user_defined_command_test, watchpoint_command_test) (test_command_prompt_position, deprecated_command_test) (bp_deleted_in_command, temporary_breakpoint_commands) (stray_arg0_test, source_file_with_indented_comment) (recursive_source_test, if_commands_test) (error_clears_commands_left, redefine_hook_test) (redefine_backtrace_test): Use proc_with_prefix. * lib/gdb.exp (proc_with_prefix): New proc.
2016-11-09 16:45:49 +01:00
pass "begin commands"
}
}
gdb_test_multiple "silent" "add silent command" {
-re ">$" {
pass "add silent command"
}
}
gdb_test_multiple "clear factorial" "add clear command" {
-re ">$" {
pass "add clear command"
}
}
gdb_test_multiple "printf \"factorial command-list executed\\n\"" \
"add printf command" {
-re ">$" {
pass "add printf command"
}
}
gdb_test_multiple "cont" "add cont command" {
-re ">$" {
pass "add cont command"
}
}
gdb_test "end" \
"" \
"end commands"
gdb_run_cmd
gdb_test "" "factorial command-list executed.*" "run factorial until breakpoint"
}
gdb/testsuite: Introduce "proc_with_prefix" While adding new tests to gdb.base/commands.exp, I noticed that the file includes a bunch of individual testcases split into their own procedures, and that none have ever been adjusted to use with_test_prefix. Instead, each gdb_test/gdb_test_multiple/etc invocation takes care of including the procedure name in the test message, in order to make sure test messages are unique. Simon convinced me that using the procedure name as prefix is not that bad of an idea: https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2016-10/msg00020.html This commit adds an IMO simpler alternative to with_test_prefix_procname added by that patch -- a new "proc_with_prefix" convenience proc that is meant to be used in place of "proc", and then uses it in commands.exp. Procedures defined with this automatically run their bodies under with_test_prefix $proc_name. Here's a sample of the resulting gdb.sum diff: [...] -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: break factorial #3 -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: set value to 5 in test_command_prompt_position -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: if test in test_command_prompt_position -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: > OK in test_command_prompt_position +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: break factorial +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: set value to 5 +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: if test +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: > OK [...] gdb/testsuite/ChangeLog: 2016-11-09 Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com> * gdb.base/commands.exp (gdbvar_simple_if_test) (gdbvar_simple_while_test, gdbvar_complex_if_while_test) (progvar_simple_if_test, progvar_simple_while_test) (progvar_complex_if_while_test, if_while_breakpoint_command_test) (infrun_breakpoint_command_test, breakpoint_command_test) (user_defined_command_test, watchpoint_command_test) (test_command_prompt_position, deprecated_command_test) (bp_deleted_in_command, temporary_breakpoint_commands) (stray_arg0_test, source_file_with_indented_comment) (recursive_source_test, if_commands_test) (error_clears_commands_left, redefine_hook_test) (redefine_backtrace_test): Use proc_with_prefix. * lib/gdb.exp (proc_with_prefix): New proc.
2016-11-09 16:45:49 +01:00
proc_with_prefix temporary_breakpoint_commands {} {
global gdb_prompt
delete_breakpoints
# Create a temporary breakpoint, and associate a commands list to it.
# This test will verify that this commands list is executed when the
# breakpoint is hit.
gdb_test "tbreak factorial" \
"Temporary breakpoint \[0-9\]+ at .*: file .*run.c, line \[0-9\]+\." \
gdb/testsuite: Introduce "proc_with_prefix" While adding new tests to gdb.base/commands.exp, I noticed that the file includes a bunch of individual testcases split into their own procedures, and that none have ever been adjusted to use with_test_prefix. Instead, each gdb_test/gdb_test_multiple/etc invocation takes care of including the procedure name in the test message, in order to make sure test messages are unique. Simon convinced me that using the procedure name as prefix is not that bad of an idea: https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2016-10/msg00020.html This commit adds an IMO simpler alternative to with_test_prefix_procname added by that patch -- a new "proc_with_prefix" convenience proc that is meant to be used in place of "proc", and then uses it in commands.exp. Procedures defined with this automatically run their bodies under with_test_prefix $proc_name. Here's a sample of the resulting gdb.sum diff: [...] -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: break factorial #3 -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: set value to 5 in test_command_prompt_position -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: if test in test_command_prompt_position -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: > OK in test_command_prompt_position +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: break factorial +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: set value to 5 +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: if test +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: > OK [...] gdb/testsuite/ChangeLog: 2016-11-09 Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com> * gdb.base/commands.exp (gdbvar_simple_if_test) (gdbvar_simple_while_test, gdbvar_complex_if_while_test) (progvar_simple_if_test, progvar_simple_while_test) (progvar_complex_if_while_test, if_while_breakpoint_command_test) (infrun_breakpoint_command_test, breakpoint_command_test) (user_defined_command_test, watchpoint_command_test) (test_command_prompt_position, deprecated_command_test) (bp_deleted_in_command, temporary_breakpoint_commands) (stray_arg0_test, source_file_with_indented_comment) (recursive_source_test, if_commands_test) (error_clears_commands_left, redefine_hook_test) (redefine_backtrace_test): Use proc_with_prefix. * lib/gdb.exp (proc_with_prefix): New proc.
2016-11-09 16:45:49 +01:00
"breakpoint"
gdb_test_multiple "commands" \
"begin commands in bp_deleted_in_command_test" {
-re "Type commands for breakpoint.*>$" {
gdb/testsuite: Introduce "proc_with_prefix" While adding new tests to gdb.base/commands.exp, I noticed that the file includes a bunch of individual testcases split into their own procedures, and that none have ever been adjusted to use with_test_prefix. Instead, each gdb_test/gdb_test_multiple/etc invocation takes care of including the procedure name in the test message, in order to make sure test messages are unique. Simon convinced me that using the procedure name as prefix is not that bad of an idea: https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2016-10/msg00020.html This commit adds an IMO simpler alternative to with_test_prefix_procname added by that patch -- a new "proc_with_prefix" convenience proc that is meant to be used in place of "proc", and then uses it in commands.exp. Procedures defined with this automatically run their bodies under with_test_prefix $proc_name. Here's a sample of the resulting gdb.sum diff: [...] -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: break factorial #3 -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: set value to 5 in test_command_prompt_position -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: if test in test_command_prompt_position -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: > OK in test_command_prompt_position +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: break factorial +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: set value to 5 +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: if test +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: > OK [...] gdb/testsuite/ChangeLog: 2016-11-09 Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com> * gdb.base/commands.exp (gdbvar_simple_if_test) (gdbvar_simple_while_test, gdbvar_complex_if_while_test) (progvar_simple_if_test, progvar_simple_while_test) (progvar_complex_if_while_test, if_while_breakpoint_command_test) (infrun_breakpoint_command_test, breakpoint_command_test) (user_defined_command_test, watchpoint_command_test) (test_command_prompt_position, deprecated_command_test) (bp_deleted_in_command, temporary_breakpoint_commands) (stray_arg0_test, source_file_with_indented_comment) (recursive_source_test, if_commands_test) (error_clears_commands_left, redefine_hook_test) (redefine_backtrace_test): Use proc_with_prefix. * lib/gdb.exp (proc_with_prefix): New proc.
2016-11-09 16:45:49 +01:00
pass "begin commands"
}
}
gdb_test_multiple "silent" "add silent tbreak command" {
-re ">$" {
pass "add silent tbreak command"
}
}
gdb_test_multiple "printf \"factorial tbreak commands executed\\n\"" \
"add printf tbreak command" {
-re ">$" {
pass "add printf tbreak command"
}
}
gdb_test_multiple "cont" "add cont tbreak command" {
-re ">$" {
pass "add cont tbreak command"
}
}
gdb_test "end" \
"" \
"end tbreak commands"
gdb_run_cmd
gdb_test "" "factorial tbreak commands executed.*" \
"run factorial until temporary breakpoint"
}
# Test that GDB can handle $arg0 outside of user functions without
# crashing.
gdb/testsuite: Introduce "proc_with_prefix" While adding new tests to gdb.base/commands.exp, I noticed that the file includes a bunch of individual testcases split into their own procedures, and that none have ever been adjusted to use with_test_prefix. Instead, each gdb_test/gdb_test_multiple/etc invocation takes care of including the procedure name in the test message, in order to make sure test messages are unique. Simon convinced me that using the procedure name as prefix is not that bad of an idea: https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2016-10/msg00020.html This commit adds an IMO simpler alternative to with_test_prefix_procname added by that patch -- a new "proc_with_prefix" convenience proc that is meant to be used in place of "proc", and then uses it in commands.exp. Procedures defined with this automatically run their bodies under with_test_prefix $proc_name. Here's a sample of the resulting gdb.sum diff: [...] -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: break factorial #3 -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: set value to 5 in test_command_prompt_position -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: if test in test_command_prompt_position -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: > OK in test_command_prompt_position +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: break factorial +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: set value to 5 +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: if test +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: > OK [...] gdb/testsuite/ChangeLog: 2016-11-09 Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com> * gdb.base/commands.exp (gdbvar_simple_if_test) (gdbvar_simple_while_test, gdbvar_complex_if_while_test) (progvar_simple_if_test, progvar_simple_while_test) (progvar_complex_if_while_test, if_while_breakpoint_command_test) (infrun_breakpoint_command_test, breakpoint_command_test) (user_defined_command_test, watchpoint_command_test) (test_command_prompt_position, deprecated_command_test) (bp_deleted_in_command, temporary_breakpoint_commands) (stray_arg0_test, source_file_with_indented_comment) (recursive_source_test, if_commands_test) (error_clears_commands_left, redefine_hook_test) (redefine_backtrace_test): Use proc_with_prefix. * lib/gdb.exp (proc_with_prefix): New proc.
2016-11-09 16:45:49 +01:00
proc_with_prefix stray_arg0_test { } {
global valnum_re
gdb_test "print \$arg0" \
"$valnum_re = void" \
gdb/testsuite: Introduce "proc_with_prefix" While adding new tests to gdb.base/commands.exp, I noticed that the file includes a bunch of individual testcases split into their own procedures, and that none have ever been adjusted to use with_test_prefix. Instead, each gdb_test/gdb_test_multiple/etc invocation takes care of including the procedure name in the test message, in order to make sure test messages are unique. Simon convinced me that using the procedure name as prefix is not that bad of an idea: https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2016-10/msg00020.html This commit adds an IMO simpler alternative to with_test_prefix_procname added by that patch -- a new "proc_with_prefix" convenience proc that is meant to be used in place of "proc", and then uses it in commands.exp. Procedures defined with this automatically run their bodies under with_test_prefix $proc_name. Here's a sample of the resulting gdb.sum diff: [...] -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: break factorial #3 -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: set value to 5 in test_command_prompt_position -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: if test in test_command_prompt_position -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: > OK in test_command_prompt_position +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: break factorial +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: set value to 5 +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: if test +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: > OK [...] gdb/testsuite/ChangeLog: 2016-11-09 Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com> * gdb.base/commands.exp (gdbvar_simple_if_test) (gdbvar_simple_while_test, gdbvar_complex_if_while_test) (progvar_simple_if_test, progvar_simple_while_test) (progvar_complex_if_while_test, if_while_breakpoint_command_test) (infrun_breakpoint_command_test, breakpoint_command_test) (user_defined_command_test, watchpoint_command_test) (test_command_prompt_position, deprecated_command_test) (bp_deleted_in_command, temporary_breakpoint_commands) (stray_arg0_test, source_file_with_indented_comment) (recursive_source_test, if_commands_test) (error_clears_commands_left, redefine_hook_test) (redefine_backtrace_test): Use proc_with_prefix. * lib/gdb.exp (proc_with_prefix): New proc.
2016-11-09 16:45:49 +01:00
"#1"
gdb_test "if 1 == 1\nprint \$arg0\nend" \
"$valnum_re = void" \
gdb/testsuite: Introduce "proc_with_prefix" While adding new tests to gdb.base/commands.exp, I noticed that the file includes a bunch of individual testcases split into their own procedures, and that none have ever been adjusted to use with_test_prefix. Instead, each gdb_test/gdb_test_multiple/etc invocation takes care of including the procedure name in the test message, in order to make sure test messages are unique. Simon convinced me that using the procedure name as prefix is not that bad of an idea: https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2016-10/msg00020.html This commit adds an IMO simpler alternative to with_test_prefix_procname added by that patch -- a new "proc_with_prefix" convenience proc that is meant to be used in place of "proc", and then uses it in commands.exp. Procedures defined with this automatically run their bodies under with_test_prefix $proc_name. Here's a sample of the resulting gdb.sum diff: [...] -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: break factorial #3 -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: set value to 5 in test_command_prompt_position -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: if test in test_command_prompt_position -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: > OK in test_command_prompt_position +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: break factorial +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: set value to 5 +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: if test +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: > OK [...] gdb/testsuite/ChangeLog: 2016-11-09 Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com> * gdb.base/commands.exp (gdbvar_simple_if_test) (gdbvar_simple_while_test, gdbvar_complex_if_while_test) (progvar_simple_if_test, progvar_simple_while_test) (progvar_complex_if_while_test, if_while_breakpoint_command_test) (infrun_breakpoint_command_test, breakpoint_command_test) (user_defined_command_test, watchpoint_command_test) (test_command_prompt_position, deprecated_command_test) (bp_deleted_in_command, temporary_breakpoint_commands) (stray_arg0_test, source_file_with_indented_comment) (recursive_source_test, if_commands_test) (error_clears_commands_left, redefine_hook_test) (redefine_backtrace_test): Use proc_with_prefix. * lib/gdb.exp (proc_with_prefix): New proc.
2016-11-09 16:45:49 +01:00
"#2"
gdb_test "print \$arg0 = 1" \
"$valnum_re = 1" \
gdb/testsuite: Introduce "proc_with_prefix" While adding new tests to gdb.base/commands.exp, I noticed that the file includes a bunch of individual testcases split into their own procedures, and that none have ever been adjusted to use with_test_prefix. Instead, each gdb_test/gdb_test_multiple/etc invocation takes care of including the procedure name in the test message, in order to make sure test messages are unique. Simon convinced me that using the procedure name as prefix is not that bad of an idea: https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2016-10/msg00020.html This commit adds an IMO simpler alternative to with_test_prefix_procname added by that patch -- a new "proc_with_prefix" convenience proc that is meant to be used in place of "proc", and then uses it in commands.exp. Procedures defined with this automatically run their bodies under with_test_prefix $proc_name. Here's a sample of the resulting gdb.sum diff: [...] -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: break factorial #3 -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: set value to 5 in test_command_prompt_position -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: if test in test_command_prompt_position -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: > OK in test_command_prompt_position +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: break factorial +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: set value to 5 +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: if test +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: > OK [...] gdb/testsuite/ChangeLog: 2016-11-09 Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com> * gdb.base/commands.exp (gdbvar_simple_if_test) (gdbvar_simple_while_test, gdbvar_complex_if_while_test) (progvar_simple_if_test, progvar_simple_while_test) (progvar_complex_if_while_test, if_while_breakpoint_command_test) (infrun_breakpoint_command_test, breakpoint_command_test) (user_defined_command_test, watchpoint_command_test) (test_command_prompt_position, deprecated_command_test) (bp_deleted_in_command, temporary_breakpoint_commands) (stray_arg0_test, source_file_with_indented_comment) (recursive_source_test, if_commands_test) (error_clears_commands_left, redefine_hook_test) (redefine_backtrace_test): Use proc_with_prefix. * lib/gdb.exp (proc_with_prefix): New proc.
2016-11-09 16:45:49 +01:00
"#3"
gdb_test "print \$arg0" \
"$valnum_re = 1" \
gdb/testsuite: Introduce "proc_with_prefix" While adding new tests to gdb.base/commands.exp, I noticed that the file includes a bunch of individual testcases split into their own procedures, and that none have ever been adjusted to use with_test_prefix. Instead, each gdb_test/gdb_test_multiple/etc invocation takes care of including the procedure name in the test message, in order to make sure test messages are unique. Simon convinced me that using the procedure name as prefix is not that bad of an idea: https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2016-10/msg00020.html This commit adds an IMO simpler alternative to with_test_prefix_procname added by that patch -- a new "proc_with_prefix" convenience proc that is meant to be used in place of "proc", and then uses it in commands.exp. Procedures defined with this automatically run their bodies under with_test_prefix $proc_name. Here's a sample of the resulting gdb.sum diff: [...] -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: break factorial #3 -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: set value to 5 in test_command_prompt_position -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: if test in test_command_prompt_position -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: > OK in test_command_prompt_position +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: break factorial +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: set value to 5 +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: if test +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: > OK [...] gdb/testsuite/ChangeLog: 2016-11-09 Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com> * gdb.base/commands.exp (gdbvar_simple_if_test) (gdbvar_simple_while_test, gdbvar_complex_if_while_test) (progvar_simple_if_test, progvar_simple_while_test) (progvar_complex_if_while_test, if_while_breakpoint_command_test) (infrun_breakpoint_command_test, breakpoint_command_test) (user_defined_command_test, watchpoint_command_test) (test_command_prompt_position, deprecated_command_test) (bp_deleted_in_command, temporary_breakpoint_commands) (stray_arg0_test, source_file_with_indented_comment) (recursive_source_test, if_commands_test) (error_clears_commands_left, redefine_hook_test) (redefine_backtrace_test): Use proc_with_prefix. * lib/gdb.exp (proc_with_prefix): New proc.
2016-11-09 16:45:49 +01:00
"#4"
}
# Test that GDB is able to source a file with an indented comment.
gdb/testsuite: Introduce "proc_with_prefix" While adding new tests to gdb.base/commands.exp, I noticed that the file includes a bunch of individual testcases split into their own procedures, and that none have ever been adjusted to use with_test_prefix. Instead, each gdb_test/gdb_test_multiple/etc invocation takes care of including the procedure name in the test message, in order to make sure test messages are unique. Simon convinced me that using the procedure name as prefix is not that bad of an idea: https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2016-10/msg00020.html This commit adds an IMO simpler alternative to with_test_prefix_procname added by that patch -- a new "proc_with_prefix" convenience proc that is meant to be used in place of "proc", and then uses it in commands.exp. Procedures defined with this automatically run their bodies under with_test_prefix $proc_name. Here's a sample of the resulting gdb.sum diff: [...] -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: break factorial #3 -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: set value to 5 in test_command_prompt_position -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: if test in test_command_prompt_position -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: > OK in test_command_prompt_position +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: break factorial +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: set value to 5 +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: if test +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: > OK [...] gdb/testsuite/ChangeLog: 2016-11-09 Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com> * gdb.base/commands.exp (gdbvar_simple_if_test) (gdbvar_simple_while_test, gdbvar_complex_if_while_test) (progvar_simple_if_test, progvar_simple_while_test) (progvar_complex_if_while_test, if_while_breakpoint_command_test) (infrun_breakpoint_command_test, breakpoint_command_test) (user_defined_command_test, watchpoint_command_test) (test_command_prompt_position, deprecated_command_test) (bp_deleted_in_command, temporary_breakpoint_commands) (stray_arg0_test, source_file_with_indented_comment) (recursive_source_test, if_commands_test) (error_clears_commands_left, redefine_hook_test) (redefine_backtrace_test): Use proc_with_prefix. * lib/gdb.exp (proc_with_prefix): New proc.
2016-11-09 16:45:49 +01:00
proc_with_prefix source_file_with_indented_comment {} {
set file1 [standard_output_file file1]
set fd [open "$file1" w]
puts $fd \
{define my_fun
#indented comment
end
echo Done!\n}
close $fd
gdb/testsuite: Introduce "proc_with_prefix" While adding new tests to gdb.base/commands.exp, I noticed that the file includes a bunch of individual testcases split into their own procedures, and that none have ever been adjusted to use with_test_prefix. Instead, each gdb_test/gdb_test_multiple/etc invocation takes care of including the procedure name in the test message, in order to make sure test messages are unique. Simon convinced me that using the procedure name as prefix is not that bad of an idea: https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2016-10/msg00020.html This commit adds an IMO simpler alternative to with_test_prefix_procname added by that patch -- a new "proc_with_prefix" convenience proc that is meant to be used in place of "proc", and then uses it in commands.exp. Procedures defined with this automatically run their bodies under with_test_prefix $proc_name. Here's a sample of the resulting gdb.sum diff: [...] -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: break factorial #3 -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: set value to 5 in test_command_prompt_position -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: if test in test_command_prompt_position -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: > OK in test_command_prompt_position +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: break factorial +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: set value to 5 +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: if test +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: > OK [...] gdb/testsuite/ChangeLog: 2016-11-09 Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com> * gdb.base/commands.exp (gdbvar_simple_if_test) (gdbvar_simple_while_test, gdbvar_complex_if_while_test) (progvar_simple_if_test, progvar_simple_while_test) (progvar_complex_if_while_test, if_while_breakpoint_command_test) (infrun_breakpoint_command_test, breakpoint_command_test) (user_defined_command_test, watchpoint_command_test) (test_command_prompt_position, deprecated_command_test) (bp_deleted_in_command, temporary_breakpoint_commands) (stray_arg0_test, source_file_with_indented_comment) (recursive_source_test, if_commands_test) (error_clears_commands_left, redefine_hook_test) (redefine_backtrace_test): Use proc_with_prefix. * lib/gdb.exp (proc_with_prefix): New proc.
2016-11-09 16:45:49 +01:00
gdb_test "source $file1" "Done!" "source file"
}
# Test that GDB can handle arguments when sourcing files recursively.
# If the arguments are overwritten with ####### then the test has failed.
gdb/testsuite: Introduce "proc_with_prefix" While adding new tests to gdb.base/commands.exp, I noticed that the file includes a bunch of individual testcases split into their own procedures, and that none have ever been adjusted to use with_test_prefix. Instead, each gdb_test/gdb_test_multiple/etc invocation takes care of including the procedure name in the test message, in order to make sure test messages are unique. Simon convinced me that using the procedure name as prefix is not that bad of an idea: https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2016-10/msg00020.html This commit adds an IMO simpler alternative to with_test_prefix_procname added by that patch -- a new "proc_with_prefix" convenience proc that is meant to be used in place of "proc", and then uses it in commands.exp. Procedures defined with this automatically run their bodies under with_test_prefix $proc_name. Here's a sample of the resulting gdb.sum diff: [...] -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: break factorial #3 -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: set value to 5 in test_command_prompt_position -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: if test in test_command_prompt_position -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: > OK in test_command_prompt_position +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: break factorial +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: set value to 5 +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: if test +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: > OK [...] gdb/testsuite/ChangeLog: 2016-11-09 Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com> * gdb.base/commands.exp (gdbvar_simple_if_test) (gdbvar_simple_while_test, gdbvar_complex_if_while_test) (progvar_simple_if_test, progvar_simple_while_test) (progvar_complex_if_while_test, if_while_breakpoint_command_test) (infrun_breakpoint_command_test, breakpoint_command_test) (user_defined_command_test, watchpoint_command_test) (test_command_prompt_position, deprecated_command_test) (bp_deleted_in_command, temporary_breakpoint_commands) (stray_arg0_test, source_file_with_indented_comment) (recursive_source_test, if_commands_test) (error_clears_commands_left, redefine_hook_test) (redefine_backtrace_test): Use proc_with_prefix. * lib/gdb.exp (proc_with_prefix): New proc.
2016-11-09 16:45:49 +01:00
proc_with_prefix recursive_source_test {} {
set file1 [standard_output_file file1]
set file2 [standard_output_file file2]
set file3 [standard_output_file file3]
set fd [open "$file1" w]
puts $fd \
"source $file2
abcdef qwerty"
close $fd
set fd [open "$file2" w]
puts $fd \
"define abcdef
echo 1: <<<\$arg0>>>\\n
source $file3
echo 2: <<<\$arg0>>>\\n
end"
close $fd
set fd [open "$file3" w]
puts $fd \
"echo in file3\\n
#################################################################"
close $fd
gdb_test "source $file1" \
"1: <<<qwerty>>>\[\r\n]+in file3\[\r\n]+2: <<<qwerty>>>" \
gdb/testsuite: Introduce "proc_with_prefix" While adding new tests to gdb.base/commands.exp, I noticed that the file includes a bunch of individual testcases split into their own procedures, and that none have ever been adjusted to use with_test_prefix. Instead, each gdb_test/gdb_test_multiple/etc invocation takes care of including the procedure name in the test message, in order to make sure test messages are unique. Simon convinced me that using the procedure name as prefix is not that bad of an idea: https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2016-10/msg00020.html This commit adds an IMO simpler alternative to with_test_prefix_procname added by that patch -- a new "proc_with_prefix" convenience proc that is meant to be used in place of "proc", and then uses it in commands.exp. Procedures defined with this automatically run their bodies under with_test_prefix $proc_name. Here's a sample of the resulting gdb.sum diff: [...] -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: break factorial #3 -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: set value to 5 in test_command_prompt_position -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: if test in test_command_prompt_position -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: > OK in test_command_prompt_position +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: break factorial +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: set value to 5 +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: if test +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: > OK [...] gdb/testsuite/ChangeLog: 2016-11-09 Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com> * gdb.base/commands.exp (gdbvar_simple_if_test) (gdbvar_simple_while_test, gdbvar_complex_if_while_test) (progvar_simple_if_test, progvar_simple_while_test) (progvar_complex_if_while_test, if_while_breakpoint_command_test) (infrun_breakpoint_command_test, breakpoint_command_test) (user_defined_command_test, watchpoint_command_test) (test_command_prompt_position, deprecated_command_test) (bp_deleted_in_command, temporary_breakpoint_commands) (stray_arg0_test, source_file_with_indented_comment) (recursive_source_test, if_commands_test) (error_clears_commands_left, redefine_hook_test) (redefine_backtrace_test): Use proc_with_prefix. * lib/gdb.exp (proc_with_prefix): New proc.
2016-11-09 16:45:49 +01:00
"source file"
file delete $file1
file delete $file2
file delete $file3
}
proc gdb_test_no_prompt { command result msg } {
global gdb_prompt
set msg "$command - $msg"
set result "^[string_to_regexp $command]\r\n$result$"
gdb_test_multiple $command $msg {
-re "$result" {
pass $msg
return 1
}
-re "\r\n *>$" {
fail $msg
return 0
}
}
return 0
}
gdb/testsuite: Introduce "proc_with_prefix" While adding new tests to gdb.base/commands.exp, I noticed that the file includes a bunch of individual testcases split into their own procedures, and that none have ever been adjusted to use with_test_prefix. Instead, each gdb_test/gdb_test_multiple/etc invocation takes care of including the procedure name in the test message, in order to make sure test messages are unique. Simon convinced me that using the procedure name as prefix is not that bad of an idea: https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2016-10/msg00020.html This commit adds an IMO simpler alternative to with_test_prefix_procname added by that patch -- a new "proc_with_prefix" convenience proc that is meant to be used in place of "proc", and then uses it in commands.exp. Procedures defined with this automatically run their bodies under with_test_prefix $proc_name. Here's a sample of the resulting gdb.sum diff: [...] -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: break factorial #3 -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: set value to 5 in test_command_prompt_position -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: if test in test_command_prompt_position -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: > OK in test_command_prompt_position +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: break factorial +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: set value to 5 +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: if test +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: > OK [...] gdb/testsuite/ChangeLog: 2016-11-09 Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com> * gdb.base/commands.exp (gdbvar_simple_if_test) (gdbvar_simple_while_test, gdbvar_complex_if_while_test) (progvar_simple_if_test, progvar_simple_while_test) (progvar_complex_if_while_test, if_while_breakpoint_command_test) (infrun_breakpoint_command_test, breakpoint_command_test) (user_defined_command_test, watchpoint_command_test) (test_command_prompt_position, deprecated_command_test) (bp_deleted_in_command, temporary_breakpoint_commands) (stray_arg0_test, source_file_with_indented_comment) (recursive_source_test, if_commands_test) (error_clears_commands_left, redefine_hook_test) (redefine_backtrace_test): Use proc_with_prefix. * lib/gdb.exp (proc_with_prefix): New proc.
2016-11-09 16:45:49 +01:00
proc_with_prefix if_commands_test {} {
global gdb_prompt
gdb/testsuite: Introduce "proc_with_prefix" While adding new tests to gdb.base/commands.exp, I noticed that the file includes a bunch of individual testcases split into their own procedures, and that none have ever been adjusted to use with_test_prefix. Instead, each gdb_test/gdb_test_multiple/etc invocation takes care of including the procedure name in the test message, in order to make sure test messages are unique. Simon convinced me that using the procedure name as prefix is not that bad of an idea: https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2016-10/msg00020.html This commit adds an IMO simpler alternative to with_test_prefix_procname added by that patch -- a new "proc_with_prefix" convenience proc that is meant to be used in place of "proc", and then uses it in commands.exp. Procedures defined with this automatically run their bodies under with_test_prefix $proc_name. Here's a sample of the resulting gdb.sum diff: [...] -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: break factorial #3 -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: set value to 5 in test_command_prompt_position -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: if test in test_command_prompt_position -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: > OK in test_command_prompt_position +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: break factorial +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: set value to 5 +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: if test +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: > OK [...] gdb/testsuite/ChangeLog: 2016-11-09 Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com> * gdb.base/commands.exp (gdbvar_simple_if_test) (gdbvar_simple_while_test, gdbvar_complex_if_while_test) (progvar_simple_if_test, progvar_simple_while_test) (progvar_complex_if_while_test, if_while_breakpoint_command_test) (infrun_breakpoint_command_test, breakpoint_command_test) (user_defined_command_test, watchpoint_command_test) (test_command_prompt_position, deprecated_command_test) (bp_deleted_in_command, temporary_breakpoint_commands) (stray_arg0_test, source_file_with_indented_comment) (recursive_source_test, if_commands_test) (error_clears_commands_left, redefine_hook_test) (redefine_backtrace_test): Use proc_with_prefix. * lib/gdb.exp (proc_with_prefix): New proc.
2016-11-09 16:45:49 +01:00
gdb_test_no_output "set \$tem = 1" "set \$tem"
set test "if_commands_test 1"
gdb_test_no_prompt "if \$tem == 2" { >} $test
gdb_test_no_prompt "break main" { >} $test
gdb_test_no_prompt "else" { >} $test
gdb_test_no_prompt "break factorial" { >} $test
gdb_test_no_prompt "commands" { >} $test
gdb_test_no_prompt "silent" { >} $test
gdb_test_no_prompt "set \$tem = 3" { >} $test
gdb_test_no_prompt "continue" { >} $test
gdb_test_multiple "end" "first end - $test" {
-re " >\$" {
pass "first end - $test"
}
-re "\r\n>\$" {
fail "first end - $test"
}
}
gdb_test_multiple "end" "second end - $test" {
-re "Breakpoint \[0-9\]+ at .*: file .*run.c, line \[0-9\]+\.\r\n$gdb_prompt $" {
pass "second end - $test"
}
-re "Undefined command: \"silent\".*$gdb_prompt $" {
fail "second end - $test"
}
}
set test "if_commands_test 2"
gdb_test_no_prompt "if \$tem == 1" { >} $test
gdb_test_no_prompt "break main" { >} $test
gdb_test_no_prompt "else" { >} $test
gdb_test_no_prompt "break factorial" { >} $test
gdb_test_no_prompt "commands" { >} $test
gdb_test_no_prompt "silent" { >} $test
gdb_test_no_prompt "set \$tem = 3" { >} $test
gdb_test_no_prompt "continue" { >} $test
gdb_test_multiple "end" "first end - $test" {
-re " >\$" {
pass "first end - $test"
}
-re "\r\n>\$" {
fail "first end - $test"
}
}
gdb_test_multiple "end" "second end - $test" {
-re "Breakpoint \[0-9\]+ at .*: file .*run.c, line \[0-9\]+\.\r\n$gdb_prompt $" {
pass "second end - $test"
}
}
}
# Verify an error during "commands" commands execution will prevent any other
# "commands" from other breakpoints at the same location to be executed.
gdb/testsuite: Introduce "proc_with_prefix" While adding new tests to gdb.base/commands.exp, I noticed that the file includes a bunch of individual testcases split into their own procedures, and that none have ever been adjusted to use with_test_prefix. Instead, each gdb_test/gdb_test_multiple/etc invocation takes care of including the procedure name in the test message, in order to make sure test messages are unique. Simon convinced me that using the procedure name as prefix is not that bad of an idea: https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2016-10/msg00020.html This commit adds an IMO simpler alternative to with_test_prefix_procname added by that patch -- a new "proc_with_prefix" convenience proc that is meant to be used in place of "proc", and then uses it in commands.exp. Procedures defined with this automatically run their bodies under with_test_prefix $proc_name. Here's a sample of the resulting gdb.sum diff: [...] -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: break factorial #3 -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: set value to 5 in test_command_prompt_position -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: if test in test_command_prompt_position -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: > OK in test_command_prompt_position +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: break factorial +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: set value to 5 +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: if test +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: > OK [...] gdb/testsuite/ChangeLog: 2016-11-09 Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com> * gdb.base/commands.exp (gdbvar_simple_if_test) (gdbvar_simple_while_test, gdbvar_complex_if_while_test) (progvar_simple_if_test, progvar_simple_while_test) (progvar_complex_if_while_test, if_while_breakpoint_command_test) (infrun_breakpoint_command_test, breakpoint_command_test) (user_defined_command_test, watchpoint_command_test) (test_command_prompt_position, deprecated_command_test) (bp_deleted_in_command, temporary_breakpoint_commands) (stray_arg0_test, source_file_with_indented_comment) (recursive_source_test, if_commands_test) (error_clears_commands_left, redefine_hook_test) (redefine_backtrace_test): Use proc_with_prefix. * lib/gdb.exp (proc_with_prefix): New proc.
2016-11-09 16:45:49 +01:00
proc_with_prefix error_clears_commands_left {} {
set test "hook-stop 1"
gdb_test_multiple {define hook-stop} $test {
-re "End with a line saying just \"end\"\\.\r\n>$" {
pass $test
}
}
set test "hook-stop 1a"
gdb_test_multiple {echo hook-stop1\n} $test {
-re "\r\n>$" {
pass $test
}
}
gdb_test_no_output "end" "hook-stop 1b"
delete_breakpoints
gdb_breakpoint "main"
set test "main commands 1"
gdb_test_multiple {commands $bpnum} $test {
-re "End with a line saying just \"end\"\\.\r\n>$" {
pass $test
}
}
set test "main commands 1a"
gdb_test_multiple {echo cmd1\n} $test {
-re "\r\n>$" {
pass $test
}
}
set test "main commands 1b"
gdb_test_multiple {errorcommandxy\n} $test {
-re "\r\n>$" {
pass $test
}
}
gdb_test_no_output "end" "main commands 1c"
gdb_breakpoint "main"
set test "main commands 2"
gdb_test_multiple {commands $bpnum} $test {
-re "End with a line saying just \"end\"\\.\r\n>$" {
pass $test
}
}
set test "main commands 2a"
gdb_test_multiple {echo cmd2\n} $test {
-re "\r\n>$" {
pass $test
}
}
set test "main commands 2b"
gdb_test_multiple {errorcommandyz\n} $test {
-re "\r\n>$" {
pass $test
}
}
gdb_test_no_output "end" "main commands 2c"
gdb_run_cmd
gdb_test \
"" \
[multi_line \
"hook-stop1" \
".*" \
"cmd1" \
"Undefined command: \"errorcommandxy\"\\. Try \"help\"\\."] \
"cmd1 error"
gdb_test {echo idle\n} "\r\nidle" "no cmd2"
}
gdb/testsuite: Introduce "proc_with_prefix" While adding new tests to gdb.base/commands.exp, I noticed that the file includes a bunch of individual testcases split into their own procedures, and that none have ever been adjusted to use with_test_prefix. Instead, each gdb_test/gdb_test_multiple/etc invocation takes care of including the procedure name in the test message, in order to make sure test messages are unique. Simon convinced me that using the procedure name as prefix is not that bad of an idea: https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2016-10/msg00020.html This commit adds an IMO simpler alternative to with_test_prefix_procname added by that patch -- a new "proc_with_prefix" convenience proc that is meant to be used in place of "proc", and then uses it in commands.exp. Procedures defined with this automatically run their bodies under with_test_prefix $proc_name. Here's a sample of the resulting gdb.sum diff: [...] -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: break factorial #3 -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: set value to 5 in test_command_prompt_position -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: if test in test_command_prompt_position -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: > OK in test_command_prompt_position +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: break factorial +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: set value to 5 +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: if test +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: > OK [...] gdb/testsuite/ChangeLog: 2016-11-09 Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com> * gdb.base/commands.exp (gdbvar_simple_if_test) (gdbvar_simple_while_test, gdbvar_complex_if_while_test) (progvar_simple_if_test, progvar_simple_while_test) (progvar_complex_if_while_test, if_while_breakpoint_command_test) (infrun_breakpoint_command_test, breakpoint_command_test) (user_defined_command_test, watchpoint_command_test) (test_command_prompt_position, deprecated_command_test) (bp_deleted_in_command, temporary_breakpoint_commands) (stray_arg0_test, source_file_with_indented_comment) (recursive_source_test, if_commands_test) (error_clears_commands_left, redefine_hook_test) (redefine_backtrace_test): Use proc_with_prefix. * lib/gdb.exp (proc_with_prefix): New proc.
2016-11-09 16:45:49 +01:00
proc_with_prefix redefine_hook_test {} {
global gdb_prompt
gdb_test \
[multi_line_input \
"define one"\
"end"] \
"" \
"define one"
gdb_test \
[multi_line_input \
"define hook-one" \
"echo hibob\\n" \
"end"] \
"" \
"define hook-one"
gdb/testsuite: Introduce "proc_with_prefix" While adding new tests to gdb.base/commands.exp, I noticed that the file includes a bunch of individual testcases split into their own procedures, and that none have ever been adjusted to use with_test_prefix. Instead, each gdb_test/gdb_test_multiple/etc invocation takes care of including the procedure name in the test message, in order to make sure test messages are unique. Simon convinced me that using the procedure name as prefix is not that bad of an idea: https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2016-10/msg00020.html This commit adds an IMO simpler alternative to with_test_prefix_procname added by that patch -- a new "proc_with_prefix" convenience proc that is meant to be used in place of "proc", and then uses it in commands.exp. Procedures defined with this automatically run their bodies under with_test_prefix $proc_name. Here's a sample of the resulting gdb.sum diff: [...] -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: break factorial #3 -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: set value to 5 in test_command_prompt_position -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: if test in test_command_prompt_position -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: > OK in test_command_prompt_position +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: break factorial +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: set value to 5 +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: if test +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: > OK [...] gdb/testsuite/ChangeLog: 2016-11-09 Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com> * gdb.base/commands.exp (gdbvar_simple_if_test) (gdbvar_simple_while_test, gdbvar_complex_if_while_test) (progvar_simple_if_test, progvar_simple_while_test) (progvar_complex_if_while_test, if_while_breakpoint_command_test) (infrun_breakpoint_command_test, breakpoint_command_test) (user_defined_command_test, watchpoint_command_test) (test_command_prompt_position, deprecated_command_test) (bp_deleted_in_command, temporary_breakpoint_commands) (stray_arg0_test, source_file_with_indented_comment) (recursive_source_test, if_commands_test) (error_clears_commands_left, redefine_hook_test) (redefine_backtrace_test): Use proc_with_prefix. * lib/gdb.exp (proc_with_prefix): New proc.
2016-11-09 16:45:49 +01:00
set test "redefine one"
gdb_test_multiple "define one" $test {
-re "Redefine command .one.. .y or n. $" {
send_gdb "y\n"
exp_continue
}
-re "End with" {
gdb/testsuite: Introduce "proc_with_prefix" While adding new tests to gdb.base/commands.exp, I noticed that the file includes a bunch of individual testcases split into their own procedures, and that none have ever been adjusted to use with_test_prefix. Instead, each gdb_test/gdb_test_multiple/etc invocation takes care of including the procedure name in the test message, in order to make sure test messages are unique. Simon convinced me that using the procedure name as prefix is not that bad of an idea: https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2016-10/msg00020.html This commit adds an IMO simpler alternative to with_test_prefix_procname added by that patch -- a new "proc_with_prefix" convenience proc that is meant to be used in place of "proc", and then uses it in commands.exp. Procedures defined with this automatically run their bodies under with_test_prefix $proc_name. Here's a sample of the resulting gdb.sum diff: [...] -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: break factorial #3 -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: set value to 5 in test_command_prompt_position -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: if test in test_command_prompt_position -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: > OK in test_command_prompt_position +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: break factorial +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: set value to 5 +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: if test +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: > OK [...] gdb/testsuite/ChangeLog: 2016-11-09 Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com> * gdb.base/commands.exp (gdbvar_simple_if_test) (gdbvar_simple_while_test, gdbvar_complex_if_while_test) (progvar_simple_if_test, progvar_simple_while_test) (progvar_complex_if_while_test, if_while_breakpoint_command_test) (infrun_breakpoint_command_test, breakpoint_command_test) (user_defined_command_test, watchpoint_command_test) (test_command_prompt_position, deprecated_command_test) (bp_deleted_in_command, temporary_breakpoint_commands) (stray_arg0_test, source_file_with_indented_comment) (recursive_source_test, if_commands_test) (error_clears_commands_left, redefine_hook_test) (redefine_backtrace_test): Use proc_with_prefix. * lib/gdb.exp (proc_with_prefix): New proc.
2016-11-09 16:45:49 +01:00
pass $test
}
}
gdb_test "end" "" "enter commands for one redefinition"
gdb_test "one" "hibob" "execute one command"
}
gdb/testsuite: Introduce "proc_with_prefix" While adding new tests to gdb.base/commands.exp, I noticed that the file includes a bunch of individual testcases split into their own procedures, and that none have ever been adjusted to use with_test_prefix. Instead, each gdb_test/gdb_test_multiple/etc invocation takes care of including the procedure name in the test message, in order to make sure test messages are unique. Simon convinced me that using the procedure name as prefix is not that bad of an idea: https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2016-10/msg00020.html This commit adds an IMO simpler alternative to with_test_prefix_procname added by that patch -- a new "proc_with_prefix" convenience proc that is meant to be used in place of "proc", and then uses it in commands.exp. Procedures defined with this automatically run their bodies under with_test_prefix $proc_name. Here's a sample of the resulting gdb.sum diff: [...] -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: break factorial #3 -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: set value to 5 in test_command_prompt_position -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: if test in test_command_prompt_position -PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: > OK in test_command_prompt_position +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: break factorial +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: set value to 5 +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: if test +PASS: gdb.base/commands.exp: test_command_prompt_position: > OK [...] gdb/testsuite/ChangeLog: 2016-11-09 Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com> * gdb.base/commands.exp (gdbvar_simple_if_test) (gdbvar_simple_while_test, gdbvar_complex_if_while_test) (progvar_simple_if_test, progvar_simple_while_test) (progvar_complex_if_while_test, if_while_breakpoint_command_test) (infrun_breakpoint_command_test, breakpoint_command_test) (user_defined_command_test, watchpoint_command_test) (test_command_prompt_position, deprecated_command_test) (bp_deleted_in_command, temporary_breakpoint_commands) (stray_arg0_test, source_file_with_indented_comment) (recursive_source_test, if_commands_test) (error_clears_commands_left, redefine_hook_test) (redefine_backtrace_test): Use proc_with_prefix. * lib/gdb.exp (proc_with_prefix): New proc.
2016-11-09 16:45:49 +01:00
proc_with_prefix redefine_backtrace_test {} {
global gdb_prompt
gdb_test_multiple "define backtrace" "define backtrace" {
-re "Really redefine built-in command \"backtrace\"\\? \\(y or n\\) $" {
pass "define backtrace"
}
}
gdb_test_multiple "y" "expect response to define backtrace" {
-re "End with a line saying just \"end\"\\.\r\n>$" {
pass "expect response to define backtrace"
}
}
gdb_test \
[multi_line_input \
"echo hibob\\n" \
"end"] \
"" \
"enter commands"
gdb_test "backtrace" "hibob" "execute backtrace command"
gdb_test "bt" "hibob" "execute bt command"
}
gdbvar_simple_if_test
gdbvar_simple_while_test
gdbvar_complex_if_while_test
progvar_simple_if_test
progvar_simple_while_test
progvar_complex_if_while_test
if_while_breakpoint_command_test
infrun_breakpoint_command_test
breakpoint_command_test
user_defined_command_test
1999-06-28 18:06:02 +02:00
watchpoint_command_test
1999-04-26 20:34:20 +02:00
test_command_prompt_position
deprecated_command_test
bp_deleted_in_command_test
temporary_breakpoint_commands
stray_arg0_test
source_file_with_indented_comment
recursive_source_test
if_commands_test
error_clears_commands_left
redefine_hook_test
# This one should come last, as it redefines "backtrace".
redefine_backtrace_test