This is the mail archive of the 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]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [PATCH] Fix gdb.trace/mi-traceframe-changed.exp to check for target trace support

On 01/10/2014 03:57 AM, Sergio Durigan Junior wrote:
> On Friday, January 10 2014, Yao Qi wrote:
>> Ah, I read the patch and mi-traceframe-change.exp again, and find my
>> last comment is wrong.  Sorry for the confusion.
> Thank you!  I was secretly wondering whether my patch was correct or
> not, because I thought the testcase was intended to be run partially on
> native debugging, as you explained.  I was going to e-mail something
> about it tomorrow, but you were faster :-).
>> The first half of mi-traceframe-changed.exp (test_tfind_tfile) is to
>> test "=traceframe-changed" on tfile target, which is produced by
>> tfile.c.  It is expected to run on native debugging.  The second half
>> of mi-traceframe-changed.exp (test_tfile_remote) is to test
>> "=traceframe-changed" on remote target with a gdbserver connected.  We
>> can see mi-traceframe-changed.exp has already have the code to check
>> target supports tracing or not.
>> The root cause is that tfile.c isn't portable and unable to produce
>> trace file properly for s390x.  Search FIXME in it.
> Indeed, thanks for pointing that.

Is it the register block size?  What's the actual error that
causes / you're seeing?

>> We should skip test_find_tfile for targets other than x86-linux or
>> x86_64-linux.  Alternatively, we can modify tfile.c for s390x, but I
>> think "generating tfile on a unsupported-tracing target" isn't useful.
> OK, WDYT of this version then?
Pedro Alves

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