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: [testsuite patch] Fix recent GCC FAIL: gdb.arch/i386-signal.exp

On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 5:39 PM, Jan Kratochvil
<> wrote:
> On Tue, 04 Oct 2016 18:19:00 +0200, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
>> On Tue, 04 Oct 2016 18:07:56 +0200, Yao Qi wrote:
>> > > The .c patch will properly create a new corresponding source line .debug_line
>> > > entry for the 'mov $0x0,%eax' instruction and I also do not think it is
>> > > relevant to the purpose of this testfile.
>> >
>> > Why do we need the second one?
>> I find it more cleaner but that is up to you.
> To make that my reason more explanatory - given the testcase expected output
> is affected by that missing "return 0;" and its .debug_line record I find it
> more clear for this testcase to put there the source line "return 0;"
> explicitly than to depend on such implicit line by compiler as then the debug
> info is unclear for that line - even among different compilers.

We need the first chunk "($hex in )?main" because the unwind pc may point
to the first instruction of a source line or the non-first instruction
of a line.
Either is possible.   It doesn't matter that "callq  setup" and
"mov    $0x0,%eax" are mapped to the same line or not.

Change in gdb.arch/i386-signal.exp is good to me, but change
in gdb.arch/i386-signal.c is not necessary.

Yao (齐尧)

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