From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25282 invoked by alias); 22 Sep 2004 16:56:12 -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 25272 invoked from network); 22 Sep 2004 16:56:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO us.ibm.com) (32.97.110.142) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 22 Sep 2004 16:56:11 -0000 Received: by us.ibm.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 75D03111A3; Wed, 22 Sep 2004 09:53:53 -0700 (PDT) From: Paul Gilliam Reply-To: pgilliam@us.ibm.com To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fixes testsuit/gdb.base/annota1.exp Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 16:56:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.6.2 Cc: Andrew Cagney , Michael Chastain References: <200409211441.33901.pgilliam@us.ibm.com> <4151851B.1040100@gnu.org> In-Reply-To: <4151851B.1040100@gnu.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200409220953.53052.pgilliam@us.ibm.com> X-SW-Source: 2004-09/txt/msg00355.txt.bz2 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.