From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20769 invoked by alias); 26 Feb 2006 18:40:11 -0000 Received: (qmail 20759 invoked by uid 22791); 26 Feb 2006 18:40:10 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from nevyn.them.org (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31.1) with ESMTP; Sun, 26 Feb 2006 18:40:08 +0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.54) id 1FDQoP-0005Au-15; Sun, 26 Feb 2006 13:40:05 -0500 Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 18:49:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Fred Fish Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Recognize and skip interpreter_p initialization in selftest.exp Message-ID: <20060226184004.GA19823@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Fred Fish , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <200602261335.28612.fnf@specifix.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200602261335.28612.fnf@specifix.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.8i X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-02/txt/msg00482.txt.bz2 On Sun, Feb 26, 2006 at 01:35:28PM -0500, Fred Fish wrote: > With the latest development gcc and latest development gdb, > selftest.exp fails because the breakpoint at captured_main gets set at > the interpreter_p initialization, which isn't currently one of the > recognized patterns. Apparently optimization has gotten better and > this code has been moved up the instruction stream: > > (gdb) br captured_main > Breakpoint 1 at 0x807c714: file /src/latest/trunk/src/gdb/gdb/main.c, line 241. > (gdb) run > Starting program: /links/build/latest/trunk/i686-pc-linux-gnu/gdb/gdb/gdb > Breakpoint 1, captured_main (data=0xbfdbb3f4) at /src/latest/trunk/src/gdb/gdb/main.c:241 > 241 interpreter_p = xstrdup (context->interpreter_p); I'm not sure "better" is the word I'd use - how the heck did that happen? Could you please verify a couple of things for me: that we are reasonably close to the beginning of the function, that the prologue skipper hasn't gone too far, and that the instruction being executed has actually got some relationship to line 241. I've noticed some strange failures in this test recently too, but I haven't had time to look into them. It's entirely possible that nothing's wrong and your patch is fine - I'm just being paranoid for GCC and/or GDB bugs. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery