From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20063 invoked by alias); 11 Apr 2006 01:30:45 -0000 Received: (qmail 20054 invoked by uid 22791); 11 Apr 2006 01:30:44 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from viper.snap.net.nz (HELO viper.snap.net.nz) (202.37.101.8) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Tue, 11 Apr 2006 01:30:42 +0000 Received: from farnswood.snap.net.nz (p202-124-115-91.snap.net.nz [202.124.115.91]) by viper.snap.net.nz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99EED752441; Tue, 11 Apr 2006 13:30:35 +1200 (NZST) Received: by farnswood.snap.net.nz (Postfix, from userid 500) id 84DC862A99; Tue, 11 Apr 2006 02:30:23 +0100 (BST) From: Nick Roberts MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <17467.1710.539269.777743@farnswood.snap.net.nz> Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 01:30:00 -0000 To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: "David S. Miller" , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH]: Fix gdb.mi/mi-regs.exp In-Reply-To: <20060410124326.GA20298@nevyn.them.org> References: <17465.33321.414493.769813@farnswood.snap.net.nz> <20060409.203142.76326217.davem@davemloft.net> <17466.931.119823.103959@farnswood.snap.net.nz> <20060410.002041.124255612.davem@davemloft.net> <20060410124326.GA20298@nevyn.them.org> Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-04/txt/msg00130.txt.bz2 > > > But these tests are for the MI interface. Register tests for specific > > > architectures could presumably go in gdb.base/regs.exp and tests in > > > mi-regs.exp could be more general e.g just check > > > -data-list-register-names returns a list of values, count them and use > > > this information for tests on -data-list-register-values. > > > > In the long term that's probably a good idea. > > mi-regs.exp should check "the registers are internally consistent > and sane". It could encode knowledge of which registers must be > present, or not; it works either way... I'm not sure if you're agreeing or not. I think I made the change to mi_cmd_data_list_register_values which broke the test for sparc. As I ran the testsuite on i386, I saw no failures of course. Clearly tests which check the registers are internally consistent and sane for all architectures are desirable. Since no-one is offering to do that shall I try to write a few generic ones as suggested above? -- Nick http://www.inet.net.nz/~nickrob