Re: [patch/RFA] multiarch INSTRUCTION_NULLIFIED

Daniel Jacobowitz
2004-12-03T22:37:20Z

On Fri, Dec 03, 2004 at 04:09:50PM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> Randolph Chung wrote:
>
> Just some nits, fix that, and assuming daniel doesn't notice anything
> (for a day or til monday?), commit it.
>
> >+gdb_breakpoint foo
> >+gdb_test "run" ".*Breakpoint 1, .* in foo.*" "Breakpoint at foo"
>
> The leading .* in the pattern you've picked up from the existing code
> isn't actually needed (well at least I'm 99% certain of this as I've
> been stripping them out my self and it makes things more efficient) (the
> trailing .*s are needed :-):

That's right. gdb_test_multiple does:
return [gdb_test_multiple $command $message {
-re "\[\r\n\]*($pattern)\[\r\n\]+$gdb_prompt $" {

Hmm, that initial bit is completely pointless...

> >+ }
> >+ -re ".*in bar.*$gdb_prompt $" {
> >+ fail "stepped into bar"
>
> The pass / fail messages should all be identical (except perhaps for a
> fail where a trailing comment in paren can be added). So:
>
> fail "$test (stepped into bar)"
>
> >+ }
> >+ -re ".*in main.*$gdb_prompt $" {
> >+ pass "stepped into main"
>
> and just:
>
> pass "$test"
>
> check for the same problem elsewhere.
>
> >+ gdb_test_multiple "print $sym" "Get address of $sym" {
> >+ -re ".*($hex) <$sym>.*$gdb_prompt $" {
> >+ set addr $expect_out(1,string)
> >+ pass "got address of $sym = $addr"
> >+ }
> >+ }
>
> Remove the address from the test result (I'm always being slapped for
> doing that one ;-). It can make the comparison of subsequent runs, or
> runs on different systems, harder.

[And make the different test name strings match, as earlier.]

These were the only problems I saw, too. Fix them and it's OK with me.

> I'd kfail this. Not supporting gcore is a bug.

Or just fail it for now.

--
Daniel Jacobowitz