[rfa] New test sigbpt.{c,exp}

[Michael Elizabeth Chastain]

mec> How about:
mec> 
mec>   (1) before running the program, 'disassemble bowler'
mec>   (2) at the breakpoint, 'x/i $pc'
mec>   check that the output of (2) matches one of the lines in (1)

drow> That's not a good generic fix; it's just a peculiarity of x86 that we
drow> get this particular problem.  If that hadn't been a multibyte opcode
drow> something different would have happened.

It would be a useful test because it would never give a false positive.
If the instruction in (2) is not present in (1) then that is
always a problem.  I agree that it would be full of false
negatives; like, any RISC arch with fixed-width instructions
would PASS.

drow> I think just executing another instruction here after the faulting one
drow> is enough to match the kfail, whether it's the size of a breakpoint or
drow> not.

That's okay with me too.

Michael C
not-enough-sleep-today