This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [RFA] New testes for process record save/restore commands
- From: Hui Zhu <teawater at gmail dot com>
- To: Michael Snyder <msnyder at vmware dot com>, Paul Pluzhnikov <ppluzhnikov at google dot com>
- Cc: Joel Brobecker <brobecker at adacore dot com>, "gdb-patches at sourceware dot org" <gdb-patches at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 14:56:00 +0800
- Subject: Re: [RFA] New testes for process record save/restore commands
- References: <4ADCC1CE.firstname.lastname@example.org> <20091019200322.GD5282@adacore.com> <4AE0B811.email@example.com>
This testsuite will get fail with "consecutive-precsave.exp
I checked the consecutive-precsave.exp, this issue is because:
x /2i $pc
=> 0x8048377 <foo+3>: mov 0x80495a4,%edx
0x804837d <foo+9>: mov 0x80495a8,%eax
This is the new feature of gdb from Paul.
Paul, could you add a switch for this "=>"?
On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 03:52, Michael Snyder <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Joel Brobecker wrote:
>>> 2009-10-19 ?Michael Snyder ?<email@example.com>
>>> ? ? ? ?* gdb.reverse/break-precsave.exp: New test.
>>> ? ? ? ?* gdb.reverse/consecutive-precsave.exp: Ditto.
>>> ? ? ? ?* gdb.reverse/finish-precsave.exp: Ditto.
>>> ? ? ? ?* gdb.reverse/i386-precsave.exp: Ditto.
>>> ? ? ? ?* gdb.reverse/machinestate-precsave.exp: Ditto.
>>> ? ? ? ?* gdb.reverse/sigall-precsave.exp: Ditto.
>>> ? ? ? ?* gdb.reverse/solilb-precsave.exp: Ditto.
>>> ? ? ? ?* gdb.reverse/step-precsave.exp: Ditto.
>>> ? ? ? ?* gdb.reverse/until-precsave.exp: Ditto.
>>> ? ? ? ?* gdb.reverse/watch-precsave.exp: Ditto.
>> I only quickly scanned the files, since they are essentially duplicates
>> of already-existing testcases. I didn't expect to find anything, but
>> I actually did notice a couple of things:
>> ?- Use of send_gdb/gdb_expect which should be replaced by
>> ? ?(too bad we didn't catch those in the current ones when the testcases
>> ? ?were checked in)
>> ?- unnecessary "return 0" at the end of the script.
>> I think we shouldn't put anything unnecessary in these files, as we tend
>> to forget why we put them, and the next developer who, like me, writes
>> testcase by copy/paste, will repeat the pattern because he's afraid of
>> breaking something otherwise.
> OK, committed with *some* of the gdb_expects removed.
> I'm not entirely sure how to remove some of them, and
> I've no objection to anyone else banging on them. ?;-)