This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH] Fixes testsuit/gdb.base/annota1.exp
- From: Paul Gilliam <pgilliam at us dot ibm dot com>
- To: gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com
- Cc: Andrew Cagney <cagney at gnu dot org>,Michael Chastain <mec dot gnu at mindspring dot com>
- Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 09:53:53 -0700
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fixes testsuit/gdb.base/annota1.exp
- References: <200409211441.33901.pgilliam@us.ibm.com> <4151851B.1040100@gnu.org>
- Reply-to: pgilliam at us dot ibm dot com
Andrew,
Thanks for your comments. See below...
On Wednesday 22 September 2004 06:58, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> > On powerpc64--linux, annota1.exp has two problems:
> >
> > 1) A breakpoint in a shared object may be 'delayed'. This changes GDB's
> > responce: both when the breakpoint is set and when it is hit.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean. On i386 GNU/Linux, annota1.exp gets zero
> fails so this would suggest some sort of ISA specific bug?
The problem is specific to any ISA that uses delayed breakpoints... I think
that's just the Power64.
>
> I see this lets GDB accept the ``warning: adjusting breakpoint''
> message. I'm wondering if GDB should even emit the warning - it and the
> descriptor are very much integral parts of the ABI - and hence should be
> trying to always display the descriptor symbol and code address (and not
> display the dot symbol).
I think I agree. Unless this level of detail is needed by the user for some
reason. And I don't think they need to be reminded every time the breakpoint
is hit. But that's the way the code is. The testsuite should reflect the
way the code is, and to a certain extent, the way it was.
>
> What's going to happen when 64-bit PPC stops emiting those dot symbols?
When this happens, then the regexp that I added would never be matched. So
Its kind of self correcting. Some time later we can just remove the regexp.
>
> > 2) Due to a bug (I which I knew the number), GDB 'skids' past the
> > top-of-stack when doing a backtrace. This causes two extra and severial
> > garbage stack frames to be displayed, eventually getting an error.
>
> You mean backtracing past main - that code was recently rewritten.
> However, there's apparently no test case for the feature, perhaphs it it
> should first be added and fixed?. Anyway, I don't think we should be
> passing a broken backtrace.
>
Well... this doesn't 'pass' a broken backtrace, it just doesn't let a broken
backtrace stop it from testing what it is really interested in: annotations.
I agree that we need a test for the 'backtracing past main' problem. I will
post one later today, along with a log showing it in action. Which .exp file
would you suggest I use as a model?
-=# Paul #=-
> Andrew
>
> > I have attached three patches: seperate patches for these two problems
> > and one patch that fixes them both. I have also attached test logs so
> > you can see what's up.
> >
> > Ok to commit? (which one(s)?)
> >
> > -=# Paul #=-
> >
> > PS: I thought the 'skidding past top-of-stack' problem was fixed. But
> > it doesn't seem to be in cvs-main as of last week sometime.