From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2003 invoked by alias); 8 Dec 2003 04:20:55 -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 1993 invoked from network); 8 Dec 2003 04:20:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hall.mail.mindspring.net) (207.69.200.60) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 8 Dec 2003 04:20:54 -0000 Received: from user-119a90a.biz.mindspring.com ([66.149.36.10] helo=berman.michael-chastain.com) by hall.mail.mindspring.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 1ATCt5-00075y-00; Sun, 07 Dec 2003 23:20:47 -0500 Received: by berman.michael-chastain.com (Postfix, from userid 502) id EF94D4B412; Sun, 7 Dec 2003 23:20:46 -0500 (EST) To: fnf@ninemoons.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] Outwit compiler dead code elimination in break.exp test (revised patch) Cc: cagney@gnu.org, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Message-Id: <20031208042046.EF94D4B412@berman.michael-chastain.com> Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2003 04:20:00 -0000 From: mec.gnu@mindspring.com (Michael Elizabeth Chastain) X-SW-Source: 2003-12/txt/msg00250.txt.bz2 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 * 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.