This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH] gdb.trace: Add a testcase for tdesc in tfile.
- From: Antoine Tremblay <antoine dot tremblay at ericsson dot com>
- To: Marcin KoÅcielnicki <koriakin at 0x04 dot net>
- Cc: Pedro Alves <palves at redhat dot com>, <gdb-patches at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2016 13:31:54 -0500
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] gdb.trace: Add a testcase for tdesc in tfile.
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <56BB4004 dot 1090708 at redhat dot com> <1455185675-27574-1-git-send-email-koriakin at 0x04 dot net> <56BC85E8 dot 6010409 at redhat dot com> <56BC97F1 dot 3020108 at 0x04 dot net>
Marcin KoÅcielnicki writes:
> On 11/02/16 14:00, Pedro Alves wrote:
>> On 02/11/2016 10:14 AM, Marcin KoÅcielnicki wrote:
>>> This tests whether $ymm15 can be correctly collected and printed from
>>> tfile. It covers:
>>>
>>> - storing tdesc in tfile (without that, $ymm15 doesn't exist)
>>> - ax_pseudo_register_collect for x86 (without that, $ymm15 cannot be
>>> collected)
>>> - register order in tfile_fetch_registers (without that, $ymm15h is
>>> fetched from wrong position)
>>> - off-by-one in tfile_fetch_registers (without that, $ymm15h is
>>> incorrectly considered to be out of bounds)
>>> - using proper tdesc in encoding tracepoint actions (without that,
>>> internal error happens due to $ymm15h being
>>
>> OK once prereqs are in.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Pedro Alves
>>
>
> Thanks, pushed.
Hi,
I've been trying to run this test on x86 but I get the following error
while compiling tfile-avx.c :
binutils-gdb/build-x86/gdb/testsuite/../../../gdb/testsuite/gdb.trace/tfile-avx.c:38:19: error: invalid register name for 'a'
register __v8si a asm("ymm15") = {
^
I've also noticed the same error on the buildbot results see:
http://gdb-build.sergiodj.net/builders/Debian-x86_64-m64/builds/2928/steps/test%20gdb/logs/stdio
My cpu (Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-4600M ) supports avx, cat /proc/cpuinfo
shows avx and a gdb print $ymm15 returns something...
This is with gcc 4.8.4...
Am I missing something?
Regards,
Antoine