This is the mail archive of the
gdb@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: gdb.arch vs. gdb.base gcore test cases
- From: Pedro Alves <palves at redhat dot com>
- To: Andreas Arnez <arnez at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com>
- Cc: gdb at sourceware dot org
- Date: Fri, 03 May 2013 15:00:36 +0100
- Subject: Re: gdb.arch vs. gdb.base gcore test cases
- References: <8761z0gvr7 dot fsf at br87z6lw dot de dot ibm dot com> <51839F41 dot 2050101 at redhat dot com> <87wqrgfble dot fsf at br87z6lw dot de dot ibm dot com>
On 05/03/2013 02:15 PM, Andreas Arnez wrote:
> Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com> writes:
>
>> On 05/03/2013 12:15 PM, Andreas Arnez wrote:
>>> The following two test cases are mostly identical, and their associated
>>> C source files are exactly identical:
>>>
>>> gdb.arch/system-gcore.exp
>>> gdb.base/gcore.exp
>>>
>>> Is there any specific reason for the two copies? Just curious...
>>
>> Well, what does git blame, and the initial submission of the
>> corresponding patches say? The answer probably lies in what makes them
>> "mostly identical" rather than "exactly identical" being arch
>> specific. If the differences are really small, then we could merge
>> them into gcore.exp, using istarget to guard the arch specific bits.
...
> The x86-specific one is newer; it was introduced with this change:
>
> 2010-04-17 H.J. Lu <hongjiu.lu@intel.com>
>
> PR corefiles/11511
> * gdb.arch/system-gcore.exp: New.
> * gdb.arch/gcore.c: Likewise.
>
> The only functional difference seems to be that system-gcore.exp adds a
> new comparison (before/after) for the output from "info reg system".
Did you check the original patch submission description in the
mailing list archives for a possible rationale?
Given that "system" is a predefined register group, I think
"info reg system" works on all targets, though it might come
out empty if no register is actually in that group on a given
target. That seems fine for this test.
--
Pedro Alves