This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [RFA] Allow setting breakpoints on inline functions (PR 10738)
- From: Gary Benson <gbenson at redhat dot com>
- To: gdb-patches at sourceware dot org
- Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2011 13:40:58 +0000
- Subject: Re: [RFA] Allow setting breakpoints on inline functions (PR 10738)
- References: <20111129150200.GB3425@redhat.com> <20111130201848.GA12763@host2.jankratochvil.net>
Jan Kratochvil wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Nov 2011 16:02:00 +0100, Gary Benson wrote:
> > I'm also interested in feedback about the tests I've written,
> > since this is the first time I've worked on the testsuite.
>
> I would prefer definitely a copy in gdb.dwarf2/ . gdb.opt/ I find a
> bad idea as it breaks too much across GCC changes. just gcc -S -dA
> is probably OK.
>
> If there is gdb.dwarf2/ then I would even drop the gdb.opt/ one.
> Not sure if it makes sense for non-DWARF targets, the functionality
> gets tested by the DWARF targets anyway.
Are you saying I should move the testcase from gdb.opt and into
gdb.dwarf2? I can do that.
Is there some difference between the way the various directories
of tests are treated? And, is there something I should read to help
decide where to put tests?
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.opt/inline-break.exp
> ...
> > +if { [prepare_for_testing $testfile.exp $testfile $testfile.c \
> > + {debug optimize=-O2 additional_flags=-Winline}] } {
>
> This -Winline is questionable.
>
> You make the .c file compatible even if __GNUC__ is not defined but
> then you use GCC-specific -Winline option. Either just make the
> testcase whole GCC-specific or make a fallback if the compilation
> with -Winline fails try also non-Winline. Or maybe just drop that
> -Winline, there is no -Werror anyway so it was more just for the
> testcase development.
As I understand it the -Winline is there to cause the test to fail
if the methods don't get inlined. I may very well be wrong, I don't
understand the syntax 100%, but as I read it any unexpected compiler
output causes gdb_compile to assume the compilation failed.
I copied this (somewhat) from the other gdb.opt/inline* testcases,
so if there is a problem with it then I guess they should be fixed
too.
> As I suggested the gdb.dwarf2/ way this whole -Winline is offtopic
> then.
>
> > +#
> > +# func1 is a static inlined function that is called once.
> > +# The result should be a single-location breakpoint.
> > +#
> > +gdb_test "break func1" \
> > + "Breakpoint.*at.* file .*$testfile\.c, line.*"
>
> As you use "" and not {} you should use \\.c and not \.c . This way
> it is the same as .c .
>
> It is there several times.
>
> > +# func2 is a non-static inlined function that is called once.
> > +# The result should be a breakpoint with two locations: the
> > +# out-of-line function and the single inlined instance.
> > +#
> > +gdb_test "break func2" \
> > + "Breakpoint.*at.*func2.*(2 locations).*"
>
> You wanted to use \\( and \\) here.
>
> It is there several times.
Thanks, I added the extra '\'s on my branch. Would it be better
to to use {} here, or does that make other changes?
Cheers,
Gary
--
http://gbenson.net/