Re: [PATCH] Fixes testsuit/gdb.base/annota1.exp

[Paul Gilliam <pgilliam@us.ibm.com>]

Andrew,

Thanks for your comments.  See below...

On Wednesday 22 September 2004 06:58, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> > On powerpc64--linux, annota1.exp has two problems:
> >
> > 1) A breakpoint in a shared object may be 'delayed'.  This changes GDB's
> > responce: both when the breakpoint is set and when it is hit.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean.  On i386 GNU/Linux, annota1.exp gets zero
> fails so this would suggest some sort of ISA specific bug?

The problem is specific to any ISA that uses delayed breakpoints...  I think 
that's just the Power64.  

>
> I see this lets GDB accept the ``warning: adjusting breakpoint''
> message.  I'm wondering if GDB should even emit the warning - it and the
> descriptor are very much integral parts of the ABI - and hence should be
> trying to always display the descriptor symbol and code address (and not
> display the dot symbol).

I think I agree.  Unless this level of detail is needed by the user for some 
reason.  And I don't think they need to be reminded every time the breakpoint 
is hit.  But that's the way the code is.  The testsuite should reflect the 
way the code is, and to a certain extent, the way it was.

>
> What's going to happen when 64-bit PPC stops emiting those dot symbols?

When this happens, then the regexp that I added would never be matched.  So 
Its kind of self correcting.  Some time later we can just remove the regexp.

>
> > 2) Due to a bug (I which I knew the number), GDB 'skids' past the
> > top-of-stack when doing a backtrace.  This causes two extra and severial
> > garbage stack frames to be displayed, eventually getting an error.
>
> You mean backtracing past main - that code was recently rewritten.
> However, there's apparently no test case for the feature, perhaphs it it
> should first be added and fixed?.  Anyway, I don't think we should be
> passing a broken backtrace.
>

Well... this doesn't 'pass' a broken backtrace, it just doesn't let a broken 
backtrace stop it from testing what it is really interested in: annotations.

I agree that we need a test for the 'backtracing past main' problem.  I will 
post one later today, along with a log showing it in action.  Which .exp file 
would you suggest I use as a model?

-=# Paul #=-

> Andrew
>

> > I have attached three patches: seperate patches for these two problems
> > and one patch that fixes them both.  I have also attached test logs so
> > you can see what's up.
> >
> > Ok to commit? (which one(s)?)
> >
> > -=# Paul #=-
> >
> > PS:  I thought the 'skidding past top-of-stack' problem was fixed.  But
> > it doesn't seem to be in cvs-main as of last week sometime.