From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20897 invoked by alias); 29 Jun 2003 20:11:32 -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 20889 invoked from network); 29 Jun 2003 20:11:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO crack.them.org) (146.82.138.56) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 29 Jun 2003 20:11:32 -0000 Received: from dsl093-172-017.pit1.dsl.speakeasy.net ([66.93.172.17] helo=nevyn.them.org ident=mail) by crack.them.org with asmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 19WiWw-0003va-00; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 15:12:10 -0500 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 19WiVp-0005aP-00; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 16:11:01 -0400 Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 20:11:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Joel Brobecker Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA/testsuite] test hand function call in commands list Message-ID: <20030629201100.GB32279@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Joel Brobecker , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <20030414154048.GC1151@gnat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030414154048.GC1151@gnat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2003-06/txt/msg00864.txt.bz2 On Mon, Apr 14, 2003 at 11:40:48AM -0400, Joel Brobecker wrote: > The attached patch to break.exp was written by Klee Dienes and > submitted in the following message: > > http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2002-10/msg00586.html > > The purpose of the test is to make sure that a problem occuring with > function calls inside a commands list does not cause a SIGSEGV. > > 2003-04-14 J. Brobecker > > From Klee Dienne > * gdb.base/break.exp: Add multiple calls to the inferior in > the user-commands for 'break 79'. Add a check for the calls > to the inferior in the check for the result. Add new test, to > check that user-defined breakpoint commands are called for functions > called by the user (currently fails). > > When I ran the test, I was very surprised to see one FAIL. I am > describing below the symptoms (no time to investigate this today), but I > think the test is worthwhile adding anyway. Ok to apply? This patch got sidetracked in a discussion of the one FAIL. Since it seems that the "failure" isn't something broken in GDB, but rather a behavioral decision, I'd rather not add that part of the test. I was going to separate out and apply the remainder of the patch, but it's not acceptable - it tries to match inferior output directly, which will fail for remote testing. If someone wants to rewrite this test to call inferior functions that set variables, and then print the variables to verify that the functions were called, that'd be great. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer