From: mec.gnu@mindspring.com (Michael Elizabeth Chastain)
To: fnf@ninemoons.com
Cc: cagney@gnu.org, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Outwit compiler dead code elimination in break.exp test (revised patch)
Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2003 04:20:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20031208042046.EF94D4B412@berman.michael-chastain.com> (raw)
The interesting part: before and after tests.
native i686-pc-linux-gnu, gcc 2.95.3 and 3.3.2, dwarf-2 and stabs+.
To save time, I tested only gdb.base.
All tests came out the same, except for the new names, such as:
OLD: gdb.base/break.exp: hit silent break 79
NEW: gdb.base/break.exp: hit silent break bp_location1
This is okay. In fact, I like the new names better than the old names.
---
These files need updates to copyright years:
condbreak.exp
define.exp
ena-dis-br.exp
info-proc.exp
maint.exp
---
break.c and break1.c need copyright notices.
Andrew C can provide a list of years for break.c,
covering the time before it was moved to sourceware.
---
This wording is confusing:
"Some of the tests that use this file compile it with optimization on,
which can result in these functions being optimized away. So it is
compiled into a a [sic] separate object file."
This confuses me. The first line suggests that the sentence is still
optimizing away the functions! How about something like:
"These functions are in a separate source file to prevent an optimizing
compiler from inlining them and optimizing them away."
---
Michael C
---
2003-12-07 Fred Fish <fnf@redhat.com>
* gdb.base/break.c (marker1, marker2, marker3, marker4): Move
functions to break1.c and leave prototypes behind. Add more
"set breakpoint NN here" comments.
* gdb.base/break1.c: New file.
* gdb.base/break.exp: Handle compiling test case from multiple
source files and change source file references as needed.
* gdb.base/completion.exp: Ditto.
* gdb.base/condbreak.exp: Ditto.
* gdb.base/define.exp: Ditto.
* gdb.base/ena-dis-br.exp: Ditto.
* gdb.base/info-proc.exp: Ditto.
* gdb.base/maint.exp: Ditto.
* gdb.base/until.exp: Ditto.
* gdb.base/condbreak.exp: Use bp_locationNN variables instead of
hardcoded line numbers.
* gdb.base/define.exp: Ditto.
* gdb.base/ena-dis-br.exp: Ditto.
* gdb.base/maint.exp: Ditto.
* gdb.base/until.exp: Ditto.
* gdb.base/completion.exp: Use "break1" for completion tests since
"break" is no longer a unique prefix.
next reply other threads:[~2003-12-08 4:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2003-12-08 4:20 Michael Elizabeth Chastain [this message]
2003-12-08 23:49 ` Andrew Cagney
2003-12-09 5:06 ` [PATCH] Outwit compiler dead code elimination in break.exp test Fred Fish
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2003-11-29 23:05 Fred Fish
2003-12-01 17:52 ` Andrew Cagney
2003-12-07 21:21 ` [PATCH] Outwit compiler dead code elimination in break.exp test (revised patch) Fred Fish
2003-12-08 0:31 ` Andrew Cagney
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20031208042046.EF94D4B412@berman.michael-chastain.com \
--to=mec.gnu@mindspring.com \
--cc=cagney@gnu.org \
--cc=fnf@ninemoons.com \
--cc=gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox