This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH] Adjust `pc-fp.exp' for ppc64/s390x (PR 12659)
- From: Pedro Alves <palves at redhat dot com>
- To: Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Sergio Durigan Junior <sergiodj at redhat dot com>, GDB Patches <gdb-patches at sourceware dot org>, Jan Kratochvil <jan dot kratochvil at redhat dot com>
- Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2012 21:23:04 +0100
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Adjust `pc-fp.exp' for ppc64/s390x (PR 12659)
- References: <m3mx2fmxmb.fsf@redhat.com> <5018ECBE.4020007@redhat.com> <87vch2s83x.fsf@fleche.redhat.com>
On 08/01/2012 08:52 PM, Tom Tromey wrote:
>>>>>> "Pedro" == Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com> writes:
>
>>> # Regression test for
>>> # http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12659
>>> gdb_test "info register pc fp" \
>>> - "pc: ${valueof_pc}\[\r\n\]+fp: ${valueof_fp}\[\r\n\]+"
>>> + "pc(:)?.*${valueof_pc}(.*${hex} <.*>)?\[\r\n\]+fp:
>>> ${valueof_fp}\[\r\n\]+"
>
> Pedro> Relaxing the output like that means that inadvertent changes to x86's
> Pedro> or ppc/s390x output might go unnoticed. It's best to have
>
> In this particular case, the check is really just to verify that the
> named register, and nothing else, appears at the start of the line.
>
> Before 12659 was fixed, "info register pc fp" printed:
>
> sp fp: blah blah
> fp: blah blah
>
> The "fp" on the first line was the bogus bit.
>
> I think the test would remain correct, with regards to what it was
> intended to check, if it even went as far as "pc: .*\[\r\n\]+fp: .*";
> checking the values is additional here.
Ah, in that case, I agree.
--
Pedro Alves