On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 23:21:48 +0200, Edjunior Barbosa Machado wrote:
Checking out the original PR 1090 that originated this testcase, it doesn't
mention any particularity regarding frame or backtrace, which leads me to
believe that changing where 'print' is called should not affect the main
focus of the testcase.
PR 1090 should have been about "allocate a variable into multiple registers"
which is still being tested so the testcase should be OK even this way.
<2><8d>: Abbrev Number: 8 (DW_TAG_variable)
<8e> DW_AT_name : s24
[...]
<98> DW_AT_location : 6 byte block: 53 93 4 56 93 4 (DW_OP_reg3 (ebx); DW_OP_piece: 4; DW_OP_reg6 (esi); DW_OP_piece: 4)
On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 03:26:11 +0200, Yao Qi wrote:
On 04/13/2011 05:21 AM, Edjunior Barbosa Machado wrote:
2011-04-12 Edjunior Machado<emachado@br.ibm.com>
* testsuite/gdb.base/gdb1090.exp: change breakpoint location to
read the
Please remove spurious spaces between "to" and "read".
content of 's24' correctly (avoiding "optimized out").
* testsuite/gdb.base/gdb1090.c: add comment in order to set breakpoint.
^^^^^^^^^ Delete "testsuite/", since this changelog entry will
go to gdb/testsuite/ChangLog.
And the first letter of the sentence should be capital.
http://www.gnu.org/prep/standards/html_node/Style-of-Change-Logs.html#Style-of-Change-Logs
Please check it in with those changes.
Thanks,
Jan