From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30167 invoked by alias); 11 Feb 2004 01:17:17 -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 30153 invoked from network); 11 Feb 2004 01:17:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 11 Feb 2004 01:17:16 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.30 #1 (Debian)) id 1Aqj07-0002vT-Sz; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 20:17:15 -0500 Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 01:17:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: fnf@redhat.com Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA] Fix several problems with the gdb.arch/gdb1291.exp test Message-ID: <20040211011715.GA11122@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: fnf@redhat.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <200402101807.37718.fnf@ninemoons.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200402101807.37718.fnf@ninemoons.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2004-02/txt/msg00273.txt.bz2 On Tue, Feb 10, 2004 at 06:07:37PM -0700, Fred Fish wrote: > There are several problems with the current gdb1291 test: > > (1) Compilation with -O2 is required to expose the originally reported > bug. > > (2) A gcc bug (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14022) > interferes with properly testing for the reported bug. The original > test was apparently modified to use an ASM to avoid having part of it > optimized away when using -O2. > > (3) The test case has DOS style line separators for no apparent good > reason. > > (4) The test case doesn't verify that reducing the local variable size > to less than or equal to 256 bytes makes the problem go away. Not > strictly necessary, but useful to have confirmed to ensure that we are > getting accurate test results. > > This patch fixes the above issues and also causes the failure to be > logged as: > > KFAIL: gdb.arch/gdb1291.exp: backtrace with local variable larger than 256 bytes (PRMS: gdb/1291) > > instead of just a regular FAIL. > > -Fred Sorry, not OK. There are at least three problems: - You have changed what is being tested. You are now testing the dwarf2 unwinder, not the prologue unwinder. - You are compiling an empty function with -O2 and expecting the result to have some meaning. GCC will someday, hopefully soon, remove the unused stack allocation. Then we won't be testing anything at all. - You've added a kfail pattern for PR 1291 that doesn't match the description in the PR; the less than 256 bytes case shouldn't be a kfail. I recommend writing the whole test in assembly instead; this is gdb.arch, after all. We don't want to be sensitive to GCC bugs. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer