From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8852 invoked by alias); 28 Oct 2003 16:46:39 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 8843 invoked from network); 28 Oct 2003 16:46:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hub.ott.qnx.com) (209.226.137.76) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 28 Oct 2003 16:46:37 -0000 Received: from smtp.ott.qnx.com (smtp.ott.qnx.com [10.0.2.158]) by hub.ott.qnx.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA07465; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 11:41:20 -0500 Received: from catdog ([10.4.2.2]) by smtp.ott.qnx.com (8.8.8/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA27713; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 11:36:54 -0500 Message-ID: <0c6901c39d71$d41d2150$0202040a@catdog> From: "Kris Warkentin" To: "Elena Zannoni" Cc: "Michael Elizabeth Chastain" , , References: <200310241922.h9OJMb5T024347@duracef.shout.net><0b2801c39cbb$056701c0$0202040a@catdog> <16286.37627.229387.242404@localhost.redhat.com> Subject: Re: [patch] New testcase for PR:1291 Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 16:46:00 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 X-SW-Source: 2003-10/txt/msg00811.txt.bz2 You'll have to explain that to me a bit better. KFAIL? Does that mean I leave the test as is and mark it as an expected failure somehow? Or do I modify the test and make a note? cheers, Kris ----- Original Message ----- From: "Elena Zannoni" To: "Kris Warkentin" Cc: "Michael Elizabeth Chastain" ; ; Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 11:02 AM Subject: Re: [patch] New testcase for PR:1291 > Kris Warkentin writes: > > > > A) move it and make it generic. > > > > B) leave it and write it in assembly. > > > > > > I like (B) better. The backtrace code is all about specific > > > assembly instructions. So I'd like it better in the style of the i386 > > > prologue tests, with explicit assembly. > > > > > > Michael C > > > > Okay so this bit of assembly adequately demonstrates the problem. There is > > a bit of an issue here though that perhaps some sh4 expert can clear up for > > me. If I run this and go "until sub2", it stops on sub2 and works fine. > > If, however, I go "until sub1", followed by "until sub2", it stops a couple > > instructions before sub2 and I have to 'si' into it. I can modify the test > > case to not bother checking sub1 (since we know it's okay anyway) but I'm > > still puzzled as to why this is having the problem. > > > > cheers, > > > > Kris > > > > Ok. Not sure why that happens. It defeinitely seems like a bug. File > a pr, and KFAIL it in the testsuite, with the pr number. > > elena > > > > > > void sub1 (void); > > void sub2 (void); > > > > main() > > { > > sub1(); > > sub2(); > > } > > > > asm(".text\n" > > " .align 5\n" > > "sub1:\n" > > " mov.l r14,@-r15\n" > > " add #-128,r15\n" > > " add #-128,r15\n" > > " mov r15,r14\n" > > " mov.w .STACK1,r7\n" > > " add r7,r14\n" > > " mov r14,r15\n" > > " mov.l @r15+,r14\n" > > " rts\n" > > " nop\n" > > " .align 1\n" > > ".STACK1:\n" > > " .short 256\n"); > > > > asm(".text\n" > > " .align 5\n" > > "sub2:\n" > > " mov.l r14,@-r15\n" > > " mov.w .STACK2,r3\n" > > " sub r3,r15\n" > > " mov r15,r14\n" > > " mov.w .STACK2,r7\n" > > " add r7,r14\n" > > " mov r14,r15\n" > > " mov.l @r15+,r14\n" > > " rts\n" > > " nop\n" > > " .align 1\n" > > ".STACK2:\n" > > " .short 260\n"); > > > > >