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 16:00:14 +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> <5183C304 dot 7010002 at redhat dot com> <87k3ngdsq7 dot fsf at br87z6lw dot de dot ibm dot com>
On 05/03/2013 03:48 PM, Andreas Arnez wrote:
> Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com> writes:
>
>> Did you check the original patch submission description in the
>> mailing list archives for a possible rationale?
>
> Here's the associated patch submission:
> http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2010-04/msg00534.html
>
> It doesn't seem to contain a rationale for the system-gcore test case.
>
>> 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.
>
> Right, that's what I thought.
Then why didn't you say so from the get go? ;-)
Thus a patch like this should make
> gcore-system.exp obsolete (untested):
Okay with a ChangeLog entry, and if it passes testing.
Thanks,
--
Pedro Alves