From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7048 invoked by alias); 5 Dec 2007 19:19:31 -0000 Received: (qmail 7037 invoked by uid 22791); 5 Dec 2007 19:19:30 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from igw1.br.ibm.com (HELO igw1.br.ibm.com) (32.104.18.24) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 19:19:22 +0000 Received: from mailhub3.br.ibm.com (mailhub3 [9.18.232.110]) by igw1.br.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0AE5632C457 for ; Wed, 5 Dec 2007 17:00:28 -0200 (BRDT) Received: from d24av01.br.ibm.com (d24av01.br.ibm.com [9.18.232.46]) by mailhub3.br.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v8.7) with ESMTP id lB5JJIC41892386 for ; Wed, 5 Dec 2007 17:19:19 -0200 Received: from d24av01.br.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d24av01.br.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id lB5JJIfI009947 for ; Wed, 5 Dec 2007 17:19:18 -0200 Received: from [9.18.238.212] ([9.18.238.212]) by d24av01.br.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id lB5JJHxw009938 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 5 Dec 2007 17:19:18 -0200 Subject: Re: [PATCH] PPC atomic single stepping testcase From: Luis Machado Reply-To: luisgpm@linux.vnet.ibm.com To: Ulrich Weigand Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-Reply-To: <200712042316.lB4NGkjV014646@d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com> References: <200712042316.lB4NGkjV014646@d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2007 19:29:00 -0000 Message-Id: <1196882357.19416.2.camel@gargoyle> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.12.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2007-12/txt/msg00087.txt.bz2 > Luis Machado wrote: > > > +gdb_test "x/g &puts" "$hex :\[\t\]+$hex" \ > > + "Get the address of the puts function" > > + > > +gdb_breakpoint "*(\$__ + 88)" "Breakpoint $decimal at $hex" \ > > + "Set the breakpoint at the start of the sequence" > > This appears to make quite a lot of assumptions about > glibc implementation details. I'd except just about > any glibc update to break this test ... > > As this is a PowerPC-specific case anyway, can you not > use a test that explicitly has the atomic sequence in > the code provided with the test case? > Yes, you're probably right. I'll provide something more glibc-independent. Regards, Luis