This is the mail archive of the gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the GDB project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: [RFA] [PATCH] gdb.base/break.exp


Michael Elizabeth Chastain wrote:
> 
> Here is version #2 of a break.exp patch.
> 
> This patch fixes these test failures on i686-pc-linux-gnu (native):
> 
>   FAIL: gdb.base/break.exp: break main #1
>   FAIL: gdb.base/break.exp: break main #2
>   FAIL: gdb.base/break.exp: clear main
> 
> In this version, I use "marker3" rather than "factorial".  Marker
> functions are more in line with gdb testsuite conventions.  Per my
> previous analysis, the name "main" is not suitable because "main" is
> the name of a function parameter (!) at the point where this test is run.
> 
> I did not add a new "marker5" because break.exp has many absolute line
> numbers in it and I do not care to risk adjusting them all.

That's good -- but I'm not sure why "marker3" is any better 
than "factorial".  In fact, in keeping with someone's remark
(kevinb?), factorial seems preferable, since libc startup
code is unlikely to have a "factorial" symbol, while it 
certainly might have a "marker3" symbol.

> 
> Michael Elizabeth Chastain
> <chastain@redhat.com>
> "love without fear"
> 
> ===
> 
> 2000-11-27  Michael Chastain  <chastain@redhat.com>
> 
>         * break.exp (test_clear_command): use a different function
>         than 'main' for the test function.  On glibc based systems,
>         __libc_start_main is the current function at this point in
>         execution, and __libc_start_main has a parameter named 'main'.
> 
> Index: gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/break.exp
> ===================================================================
> RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/break.exp,v
> retrieving revision 1.6
> diff -c -3 -p -r1.6 break.exp
> *** gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/break.exp    2000/11/17 16:24:48     1.6
> --- gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/break.exp    2000/11/28 05:40:16
> *************** if [istarget "hppa*-*-hpux*"] then {
> *** 707,718 ****
> 
> 
>   proc test_clear_command {} {
> !     gdb_test "break main" "Breakpoint.*at.*" "break main #1"
> !     gdb_test "break main" "Breakpoint.*at.*" "break main #2"
> 
>       # We don't test that it deletes the correct breakpoints.  We do at
>       # least test that it deletes more than one breakpoint.
> !     gdb_test "clear main" {Deleted breakpoints [0-9]+ [0-9]+.*}
>   }
> 
>   #
> --- 707,718 ----
> 
> 
>   proc test_clear_command {} {
> !     gdb_test "break marker3" "Breakpoint.*at.*" "break marker3 #1"
> !     gdb_test "break marker3" "Breakpoint.*at.*" "break marker3 #2"
> 
>       # We don't test that it deletes the correct breakpoints.  We do at
>       # least test that it deletes more than one breakpoint.
> !     gdb_test "clear marker3" {Deleted breakpoints [0-9]+ [0-9]+.*}
>   }
> 
>   #

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]