diff mbox

gdb.base/async.exp: Handle "asynchronous execution not supported"

Message ID 20151208131702.00048638@pinnacle.lan
State New, archived
Headers

Commit Message

Kevin Buettner Dec. 8, 2015, 8:17 p.m. UTC 
  On Tue, 8 Dec 2015 09:01:24 +0100
Joel Brobecker <brobecker@adacore.com> wrote:

> You might want to escape the period you're trying to match
> at the end of the sentence. Other than that, LGTM.

Fixed in new patch.  (See below.)

I've addressed Pedro's concerns too.

> Looking at this, would it be possible in this case to replace
> the send_gdb/gdb_expect into test_gdb_multiple? I'm not really
> sure, because of the async nature makes ordering of the output
> relative to the gdb_prompt different from usual, and thus perhaps
> outside the scope of what test_gdb_multiple is capable of doing...

I don't know the answer to this either.  I'll defer to someone
who knows more about this than I do.

Here's an updated patch...

    gdb.base/async.exp: Handle "asynchronous execution not supported"
    
    This change eliminates some failures on simulator targets and makes
    the test run a bit quicker too - without this change, we have to wait
    for timeouts.
    
    gdb/testsuite/ChangeLog:
    
    	* gdb.base/async.exp (proc test_background): Add case
    	for asynchronous execution not supported.
---
 gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/async.exp | 9 ++++++++-
 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

Comments

Pedro Alves Dec. 9, 2015, 10:13 a.m. UTC | #1 
On 12/08/2015 08:17 PM, Kevin Buettner wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Dec 2015 09:01:24 +0100
> Joel Brobecker <brobecker@adacore.com> wrote:
> 
>> You might want to escape the period you're trying to match
>> at the end of the sentence. Other than that, LGTM.
> 
> Fixed in new patch.  (See below.)
> 
> I've addressed Pedro's concerns too.
> 

Thanks, LGTM.

>> Looking at this, would it be possible in this case to replace
>> the send_gdb/gdb_expect into test_gdb_multiple? I'm not really
>> sure, because of the async nature makes ordering of the output
>> relative to the gdb_prompt different from usual, and thus perhaps
>> outside the scope of what test_gdb_multiple is capable of doing...
> 
> I don't know the answer to this either.  I'll defer to someone
> who knows more about this than I do.

I think I recall trying gdb_test_multiple for 884e37dc, but not sure.
The prompt matching within gdb_test_multiple will definitely be the
thing to watch out for.

> 
> Here's an updated patch...
> 

Thanks,
Pedro Alves
Kevin Buettner Dec. 9, 2015, 4:28 p.m. UTC | #2 
On Wed, 09 Dec 2015 10:13:07 +0000
Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com> wrote:

> On 12/08/2015 08:17 PM, Kevin Buettner wrote:
> >
> > Fixed in new patch.  (See below.)
> > 
> > I've addressed Pedro's concerns too.
> > 
> 
> Thanks, LGTM.

Pushed.

Thanks again (to both you and Joel) for looking it over.

Kevin
diff mbox

Patch

diff --git a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/async.exp b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/async.exp
index 2d3fb73..6546bbc 100644
--- a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/async.exp
+++ b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/async.exp
@@ -57,17 +57,24 @@  proc test_background {command before_prompt after_prompt {message ""}} {
     gdb_expect {
 	-re "^$command\r\n${before_prompt}${gdb_prompt}${after_prompt}completed\.\r\n" {
 	    pass "$message"
+	    return 0
 	}
 	-re "$gdb_prompt.*completed\.\r\n" {
 	    fail "$message"
 	}
+	-re ".*Asynchronous execution not supported on this target\..*" {
+	    unsupported "Asynchronous execution not supported: $message"
+	}
 	timeout  {
 	    fail "$message (timeout)"
 	}
     }
+    return -1
 }
 
-test_background "next&" "" ".*z = 9.*"
+if {[test_background "next&" "" ".*z = 9.*"] < 0} {
+    return
+}
 
 test_background "step&" "" ".*y = foo \\(\\).*" "step& #1"