[PATCH]: Fix gdb.mi/mi-regs.exp

[PATCH]: Fix gdb.mi/mi-regs.exp

[David S. Miller]

This test only runs on sparc 32-bit platforms, and when the "d?"
pseudo registers were added to the sparc target nobody noticed that
this caused the mi-regs test case to regress.

Also, the 111-data-list-register-values test that runs before the
executable is started expects a command name prefix to the error
message, but that won't happen because this message originates from
the generic frame handling in gdb/frame.c

Ok to apply?

2006-04-08  David S. Miller  <davem@sunset.davemloft.net>

	* gdb.mi/mi-regs.exp (111-data-list-register-values x): "No registers"
	will get printed without a mi_cmd_data_list_register_values prefix.
	(*-data-list-register-*): Correct regular expressions to expect the new
	pseudo d? floating point registers.

--- gdb.mi/mi-regs.exp.~1~	2004-08-09 09:32:44.000000000 -0700
+++ gdb.mi/mi-regs.exp	2006-04-08 21:10:55.000000000 -0700
@@ -52,7 +52,7 @@
 		"wrong arguments"
 
 	mi_gdb_test "111-data-list-register-values x" \
-		".*111\\^error,msg=\"mi_cmd_data_list_register_values: No registers\.\"" \
+		".*111\\^error,msg=\"No registers\.\"" \
 		"no executable"
 }
 
@@ -71,41 +71,41 @@
     set float2 "\\-?\[0-9\]+"
 
     mi_gdb_test "111-data-list-register-names" \
-	    "111\\^done,register-names=\\\[\"g0\",\"g1\",\"g2\",\"g3\",\"g4\",\"g5\",\"g6\",\"g7\",\"o0\",\"o1\",\"o2\",\"o3\",\"o4\",\"o5\",\"sp\",\"o7\",\"l0\",\"l1\",\"l2\",\"l3\",\"l4\",\"l5\",\"l6\",\"l7\",\"i0\",\"i1\",\"i2\",\"i3\",\"i4\",\"i5\",\"fp\",\"i7\",\"f0\",\"f1\",\"f2\",\"f3\",\"f4\",\"f5\",\"f6\",\"f7\",\"f8\",\"f9\",\"f10\",\"f11\",\"f12\",\"f13\",\"f14\",\"f15\",\"f16\",\"f17\",\"f18\",\"f19\",\"f20\",\"f21\",\"f22\",\"f23\",\"f24\",\"f25\",\"f26\",\"f27\",\"f28\",\"f29\",\"f30\",\"f31\",\"y\",\"psr\",\"wim\",\"tbr\",\"pc\",\"npc\",\"fpsr\",\"cpsr\"\\\]" \
+	    "111\\^done,register-names=\\\[\"g0\",\"g1\",\"g2\",\"g3\",\"g4\",\"g5\",\"g6\",\"g7\",\"o0\",\"o1\",\"o2\",\"o3\",\"o4\",\"o5\",\"sp\",\"o7\",\"l0\",\"l1\",\"l2\",\"l3\",\"l4\",\"l5\",\"l6\",\"l7\",\"i0\",\"i1\",\"i2\",\"i3\",\"i4\",\"i5\",\"fp\",\"i7\",\"f0\",\"f1\",\"f2\",\"f3\",\"f4\",\"f5\",\"f6\",\"f7\",\"f8\",\"f9\",\"f10\",\"f11\",\"f12\",\"f13\",\"f14\",\"f15\",\"f16\",\"f17\",\"f18\",\"f19\",\"f20\",\"f21\",\"f22\",\"f23\",\"f24\",\"f25\",\"f26\",\"f27\",\"f28\",\"f29\",\"f30\",\"f31\",\"y\",\"psr\",\"wim\",\"tbr\",\"pc\",\"npc\",\"fsr\",\"csr\",\"d0\",\"d2\",\"d4\",\"d6\",\"d8\",\"d10\",\"d12\",\"d14\",\"d16\",\"d18\",\"d20\",\"d22\",\"d24\",\"d26\",\"d28\",\"d30\"\\\]" \
 	    "list register names"
 
     mi_gdb_test "222-data-list-register-values x" \
-	    "222\\^done,register-values=\\\[\{number=\"0\",value=\"$hex\"\}.*\{number=\"71\",value=\"$hex\"\}\\\]" \
+	    "222\\^done,register-values=\\\[\{number=\"0\",value=\"$hex\"\}.*\{number=\"87\",value=\"$hex\"\}\\\]" \
 	    "register values x"
 
     mi_gdb_test "333-data-list-register-values f" \
-	    "333\\^done,register-values=\\\[\{number=\"0\",value=\"$float\"\},\{number=\"1\",value=\"$float\"\},.*\{number=\"71\",value=\"$float\"\}\\\]" \
+	    "333\\^done,register-values=\\\[\{number=\"0\",value=\"$float\"\},\{number=\"1\",value=\"$float\"\},.*\{number=\"87\",value=\"$float\"\}\\\]" \
 	    "register values f"
 
     mi_gdb_test "444-data-list-register-values d" \
-	    "444\\^done,register-values=\\\[\{number=\"0\",value=\"$decimal\"\}.*\{number=\"71\",value=\"$decimal\"\}\\\]" \
+	    "444\\^done,register-values=\\\[\{number=\"0\",value=\"$decimal\"\}.*\{number=\"87\",value=\"$decimal\"\}\\\]" \
 	    "register values d"
 
     mi_gdb_test "555-data-list-register-values o" \
-	    "555\\^done,register-values=\\\[\{number=\"0\",value=\"$octal\"\}.*\{number=\"71\",value=\"$octal\"\}\\\]" \
+	    "555\\^done,register-values=\\\[\{number=\"0\",value=\"$octal\"\}.*\{number=\"87\",value=\"$octal\"\}\\\]" \
 	    "register values o"
 
     mi_gdb_test "666-data-list-register-values t" \
-	    "666\\^done,register-values=\\\[\{number=\"0\",value=\"$binary\"\}.*\{number=\"71\",value=\"$binary\"\}\\\]" \
+	    "666\\^done,register-values=\\\[\{number=\"0\",value=\"$binary\"\}.*\{number=\"87\",value=\"$binary\"\}\\\]" \
 	    "register values t"
 
-    # On the sparc, registers 0-31 are int, 32-63 float, 64-71 int
+    # On the sparc, registers 0-31 are int, 32-63 float, 64-71 int, 72-87 float
 
     mi_gdb_test "777-data-list-register-values N" \
-	    "777\\^done,register-values=\\\[\{number=\"0\",value=\"$decimal\"\}.*\{number=\"31\",value=\"$decimal\"\},\{number=\"32\",value=\"$float\"\}.*\{number=\"63\",value=\"$float\"\},\{number=\"64\",value=\"$decimal\"\}.*\{number=\"71\",value=\"$decimal\"\}\\\]" \
+	    "777\\^done,register-values=\\\[\{number=\"0\",value=\"$decimal\"\}.*\{number=\"31\",value=\"$decimal\"\},\{number=\"32\",value=\"$float\"\}.*\{number=\"63\",value=\"$float\"\},\{number=\"64\",value=\"$decimal\"\}.*\{number=\"71\",value=\"$decimal\"\},\{number=\"72\",value=\"$float\"\}.*\{number=\"87\",value=\"$float\"\}\\\]" \
 	    "register values N"
 
     mi_gdb_test "888-data-list-register-values r" \
-	    "888\\^done,register-values=\\\[\{number=\"0\",value=\"$hex\"\}.*\{number=\"71\",value=\"$hex\"\}\\\]" \
+	    "888\\^done,register-values=\\\[\{number=\"0\",value=\"$hex\"\}.*\{number=\"87\",value=\"$hex\"\}\\\]" \
 	    "register values r"
 
     mi_gdb_test "999-data-list-register-names 68 69 70 71" \
-	    "999\\^done,register-names=\\\[\"pc\",\"npc\",\"fpsr\",\"cpsr\"\\\]" \
+	    "999\\^done,register-names=\\\[\"pc\",\"npc\",\"fsr\",\"csr\"\\\]" \
 	    "list names of some regs"
 
     mi_gdb_test "001-data-list-register-values x 68 69 70 71" \

Re: [PATCH]: Fix gdb.mi/mi-regs.exp

[Daniel Jacobowitz]

On Sat, Apr 08, 2006 at 09:21:33PM -0700, David S. Miller wrote:
> 
> 2006-04-08  David S. Miller  <davem@sunset.davemloft.net>
> 
> 	* gdb.mi/mi-regs.exp (111-data-list-register-values x): "No registers"
> 	will get printed without a mi_cmd_data_list_register_values prefix.
> 	(*-data-list-register-*): Correct regular expressions to expect the new
> 	pseudo d? floating point registers.

OK, with a corresponding fix to mi2-regs.exp.

Sorry for the delay getting back to you.  I'll be going through the
rest of your pending patches this afternoon, I hope.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery

Re: [PATCH]: Fix gdb.mi/mi-regs.exp

[David S. Miller]

From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
Date: Fri, 5 May 2006 16:06:45 -0400

> On Sat, Apr 08, 2006 at 09:21:33PM -0700, David S. Miller wrote:
> > 
> > 2006-04-08  David S. Miller  <davem@sunset.davemloft.net>
> > 
> > 	* gdb.mi/mi-regs.exp (111-data-list-register-values x): "No registers"
> > 	will get printed without a mi_cmd_data_list_register_values prefix.
> > 	(*-data-list-register-*): Correct regular expressions to expect the new
> > 	pseudo d? floating point registers.
> 
> OK, with a corresponding fix to mi2-regs.exp.

I went back to this to push these changes to the mi2-regs.exp test
case, but I ran into a problem.

Is $decimal supposed to match negative numbers?  It seems that if
I mark a register value as expected to be $decimal, then negative
numbers such as -358127 do not match.

> Sorry for the delay getting back to you.  I'll be going through the
> rest of your pending patches this afternoon, I hope.

No problem.

Re: [PATCH]: Fix gdb.mi/mi-regs.exp

[Daniel Jacobowitz]

On Fri, May 05, 2006 at 04:15:04PM -0700, David S. Miller wrote:
> I went back to this to push these changes to the mi2-regs.exp test
> case, but I ran into a problem.
> 
> Is $decimal supposed to match negative numbers?  It seems that if
> I mark a register value as expected to be $decimal, then negative
> numbers such as -358127 do not match.

No, I don't think so.  So just use "-?$decimal"?

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery

Re: [PATCH]: Fix gdb.mi/mi-regs.exp

[David S. Miller]

From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
Date: Fri, 5 May 2006 19:21:07 -0400

> On Fri, May 05, 2006 at 04:15:04PM -0700, David S. Miller wrote:
> > I went back to this to push these changes to the mi2-regs.exp test
> > case, but I ran into a problem.
> > 
> > Is $decimal supposed to match negative numbers?  It seems that if
> > I mark a register value as expected to be $decimal, then negative
> > numbers such as -358127 do not match.
> 
> No, I don't think so.  So just use "-?$decimal"?

Ok, I'll give that a try.

Re: [PATCH]: Fix gdb.mi/mi-regs.exp

[David S. Miller]

From: "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Fri, 05 May 2006 16:22:41 -0700 (PDT)

> From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
> Date: Fri, 5 May 2006 19:21:07 -0400
> 
> > On Fri, May 05, 2006 at 04:15:04PM -0700, David S. Miller wrote:
> > > I went back to this to push these changes to the mi2-regs.exp test
> > > case, but I ran into a problem.
> > > 
> > > Is $decimal supposed to match negative numbers?  It seems that if
> > > I mark a register value as expected to be $decimal, then negative
> > > numbers such as -358127 do not match.
> > 
> > No, I don't think so.  So just use "-?$decimal"?
> 
> Ok, I'll give that a try.

Yep that works, here is the final patch I checked in.

2006-05-05  David S. Miller  <davem@sunset.davemloft.net>

	* gdb.mi/mi-regs.exp (111-data-list-register-values x): "No registers"
	will get printed without a mi_cmd_data_list_register_values prefix.
	(*-data-list-register-*): Correct regular expressions to expect the new
	pseudo d? floating point registers.
	* gdb.mi/mi2-regs.exp: Likewise.

Index: gdb.mi/mi-regs.exp
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/testsuite/gdb.mi/mi-regs.exp,v
retrieving revision 1.12
diff -u -p -r1.12 mi-regs.exp
--- gdb.mi/mi-regs.exp	9 Aug 2004 16:32:44 -0000	1.12
+++ gdb.mi/mi-regs.exp	5 May 2006 23:26:24 -0000
@@ -52,7 +52,7 @@ proc sparc_register_tests_no_exec { } {
 		"wrong arguments"
 
 	mi_gdb_test "111-data-list-register-values x" \
-		".*111\\^error,msg=\"mi_cmd_data_list_register_values: No registers\.\"" \
+		".*111\\^error,msg=\"No registers\.\"" \
 		"no executable"
 }
 
@@ -71,41 +71,41 @@ proc sparc_register_tests { } {
     set float2 "\\-?\[0-9\]+"
 
     mi_gdb_test "111-data-list-register-names" \
-	    "111\\^done,register-names=\\\[\"g0\",\"g1\",\"g2\",\"g3\",\"g4\",\"g5\",\"g6\",\"g7\",\"o0\",\"o1\",\"o2\",\"o3\",\"o4\",\"o5\",\"sp\",\"o7\",\"l0\",\"l1\",\"l2\",\"l3\",\"l4\",\"l5\",\"l6\",\"l7\",\"i0\",\"i1\",\"i2\",\"i3\",\"i4\",\"i5\",\"fp\",\"i7\",\"f0\",\"f1\",\"f2\",\"f3\",\"f4\",\"f5\",\"f6\",\"f7\",\"f8\",\"f9\",\"f10\",\"f11\",\"f12\",\"f13\",\"f14\",\"f15\",\"f16\",\"f17\",\"f18\",\"f19\",\"f20\",\"f21\",\"f22\",\"f23\",\"f24\",\"f25\",\"f26\",\"f27\",\"f28\",\"f29\",\"f30\",\"f31\",\"y\",\"psr\",\"wim\",\"tbr\",\"pc\",\"npc\",\"fpsr\",\"cpsr\"\\\]" \
+	    "111\\^done,register-names=\\\[\"g0\",\"g1\",\"g2\",\"g3\",\"g4\",\"g5\",\"g6\",\"g7\",\"o0\",\"o1\",\"o2\",\"o3\",\"o4\",\"o5\",\"sp\",\"o7\",\"l0\",\"l1\",\"l2\",\"l3\",\"l4\",\"l5\",\"l6\",\"l7\",\"i0\",\"i1\",\"i2\",\"i3\",\"i4\",\"i5\",\"fp\",\"i7\",\"f0\",\"f1\",\"f2\",\"f3\",\"f4\",\"f5\",\"f6\",\"f7\",\"f8\",\"f9\",\"f10\",\"f11\",\"f12\",\"f13\",\"f14\",\"f15\",\"f16\",\"f17\",\"f18\",\"f19\",\"f20\",\"f21\",\"f22\",\"f23\",\"f24\",\"f25\",\"f26\",\"f27\",\"f28\",\"f29\",\"f30\",\"f31\",\"y\",\"psr\",\"wim\",\"tbr\",\"pc\",\"npc\",\"fsr\",\"csr\",\"d0\",\"d2\",\"d4\",\"d6\",\"d8\",\"d10\",\"d12\",\"d14\",\"d16\",\"d18\",\"d20\",\"d22\",\"d24\",\"d26\",\"d28\",\"d30\"\\\]" \
 	    "list register names"
 
     mi_gdb_test "222-data-list-register-values x" \
-	    "222\\^done,register-values=\\\[\{number=\"0\",value=\"$hex\"\}.*\{number=\"71\",value=\"$hex\"\}\\\]" \
+	    "222\\^done,register-values=\\\[\{number=\"0\",value=\"$hex\"\}.*\{number=\"87\",value=\"$hex\"\}\\\]" \
 	    "register values x"
 
     mi_gdb_test "333-data-list-register-values f" \
-	    "333\\^done,register-values=\\\[\{number=\"0\",value=\"$float\"\},\{number=\"1\",value=\"$float\"\},.*\{number=\"71\",value=\"$float\"\}\\\]" \
+	    "333\\^done,register-values=\\\[\{number=\"0\",value=\"$float\"\},\{number=\"1\",value=\"$float\"\},.*\{number=\"87\",value=\"$float\"\}\\\]" \
 	    "register values f"
 
     mi_gdb_test "444-data-list-register-values d" \
-	    "444\\^done,register-values=\\\[\{number=\"0\",value=\"$decimal\"\}.*\{number=\"71\",value=\"$decimal\"\}\\\]" \
+	    "444\\^done,register-values=\\\[\{number=\"0\",value=\"-?$decimal\"\}.*\{number=\"87\",value=\"-?$decimal\"\}\\\]" \
 	    "register values d"
 
     mi_gdb_test "555-data-list-register-values o" \
-	    "555\\^done,register-values=\\\[\{number=\"0\",value=\"$octal\"\}.*\{number=\"71\",value=\"$octal\"\}\\\]" \
+	    "555\\^done,register-values=\\\[\{number=\"0\",value=\"$octal\"\}.*\{number=\"87\",value=\"$octal\"\}\\\]" \
 	    "register values o"
 
     mi_gdb_test "666-data-list-register-values t" \
-	    "666\\^done,register-values=\\\[\{number=\"0\",value=\"$binary\"\}.*\{number=\"71\",value=\"$binary\"\}\\\]" \
+	    "666\\^done,register-values=\\\[\{number=\"0\",value=\"$binary\"\}.*\{number=\"87\",value=\"$binary\"\}\\\]" \
 	    "register values t"
 
-    # On the sparc, registers 0-31 are int, 32-63 float, 64-71 int
+    # On the sparc, registers 0-31 are int, 32-63 float, 64-71 int, 72-87 float
 
     mi_gdb_test "777-data-list-register-values N" \
-	    "777\\^done,register-values=\\\[\{number=\"0\",value=\"$decimal\"\}.*\{number=\"31\",value=\"$decimal\"\},\{number=\"32\",value=\"$float\"\}.*\{number=\"63\",value=\"$float\"\},\{number=\"64\",value=\"$decimal\"\}.*\{number=\"71\",value=\"$decimal\"\}\\\]" \
+	    "777\\^done,register-values=\\\[\{number=\"0\",value=\"-?$decimal\"\}.*\{number=\"31\",value=\"-?$decimal\"\},\{number=\"32\",value=\"$float\"\}.*\{number=\"63\",value=\"$float\"\},\{number=\"64\",value=\"-?$decimal\"\}.*\{number=\"71\",value=\"-?$decimal\"\},\{number=\"72\",value=\"$float\"\}.*\{number=\"87\",value=\"$float\"\}\\\]" \
 	    "register values N"
 
     mi_gdb_test "888-data-list-register-values r" \
-	    "888\\^done,register-values=\\\[\{number=\"0\",value=\"$hex\"\}.*\{number=\"71\",value=\"$hex\"\}\\\]" \
+	    "888\\^done,register-values=\\\[\{number=\"0\",value=\"$hex\"\}.*\{number=\"87\",value=\"$hex\"\}\\\]" \
 	    "register values r"
 
     mi_gdb_test "999-data-list-register-names 68 69 70 71" \
-	    "999\\^done,register-names=\\\[\"pc\",\"npc\",\"fpsr\",\"cpsr\"\\\]" \
+	    "999\\^done,register-names=\\\[\"pc\",\"npc\",\"fsr\",\"csr\"\\\]" \
 	    "list names of some regs"
 
     mi_gdb_test "001-data-list-register-values x 68 69 70 71" \
Index: gdb.mi/mi2-regs.exp
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/testsuite/gdb.mi/mi2-regs.exp,v
retrieving revision 1.2
diff -u -p -r1.2 mi2-regs.exp
--- gdb.mi/mi2-regs.exp	9 Aug 2004 22:21:54 -0000	1.2
+++ gdb.mi/mi2-regs.exp	5 May 2006 23:26:24 -0000
@@ -52,7 +52,7 @@ proc sparc_register_tests_no_exec { } {
 		"wrong arguments"
 
 	mi_gdb_test "111-data-list-register-values x" \
-		".*111\\^error,msg=\"mi_cmd_data_list_register_values: No registers\.\"" \
+		".*111\\^error,msg=\"No registers\.\"" \
 		"no executable"
 }
 
@@ -71,41 +71,41 @@ proc sparc_register_tests { } {
     set float2 "\\-?\[0-9\]+"
 
     mi_gdb_test "111-data-list-register-names" \
-	    "111\\^done,register-names=\\\[\"g0\",\"g1\",\"g2\",\"g3\",\"g4\",\"g5\",\"g6\",\"g7\",\"o0\",\"o1\",\"o2\",\"o3\",\"o4\",\"o5\",\"sp\",\"o7\",\"l0\",\"l1\",\"l2\",\"l3\",\"l4\",\"l5\",\"l6\",\"l7\",\"i0\",\"i1\",\"i2\",\"i3\",\"i4\",\"i5\",\"fp\",\"i7\",\"f0\",\"f1\",\"f2\",\"f3\",\"f4\",\"f5\",\"f6\",\"f7\",\"f8\",\"f9\",\"f10\",\"f11\",\"f12\",\"f13\",\"f14\",\"f15\",\"f16\",\"f17\",\"f18\",\"f19\",\"f20\",\"f21\",\"f22\",\"f23\",\"f24\",\"f25\",\"f26\",\"f27\",\"f28\",\"f29\",\"f30\",\"f31\",\"y\",\"psr\",\"wim\",\"tbr\",\"pc\",\"npc\",\"fpsr\",\"cpsr\"\\\]" \
+	    "111\\^done,register-names=\\\[\"g0\",\"g1\",\"g2\",\"g3\",\"g4\",\"g5\",\"g6\",\"g7\",\"o0\",\"o1\",\"o2\",\"o3\",\"o4\",\"o5\",\"sp\",\"o7\",\"l0\",\"l1\",\"l2\",\"l3\",\"l4\",\"l5\",\"l6\",\"l7\",\"i0\",\"i1\",\"i2\",\"i3\",\"i4\",\"i5\",\"fp\",\"i7\",\"f0\",\"f1\",\"f2\",\"f3\",\"f4\",\"f5\",\"f6\",\"f7\",\"f8\",\"f9\",\"f10\",\"f11\",\"f12\",\"f13\",\"f14\",\"f15\",\"f16\",\"f17\",\"f18\",\"f19\",\"f20\",\"f21\",\"f22\",\"f23\",\"f24\",\"f25\",\"f26\",\"f27\",\"f28\",\"f29\",\"f30\",\"f31\",\"y\",\"psr\",\"wim\",\"tbr\",\"pc\",\"npc\",\"fsr\",\"csr\",\"d0\",\"d2\",\"d4\",\"d6\",\"d8\",\"d10\",\"d12\",\"d14\",\"d16\",\"d18\",\"d20\",\"d22\",\"d24\",\"d26\",\"d28\",\"d30\"\\\]" \
 	    "list register names"
 
     mi_gdb_test "222-data-list-register-values x" \
-	    "222\\^done,register-values=\\\[\{number=\"0\",value=\"$hex\"\}.*\{number=\"71\",value=\"$hex\"\}\\\]" \
+	    "222\\^done,register-values=\\\[\{number=\"0\",value=\"$hex\"\}.*\{number=\"87\",value=\"$hex\"\}\\\]" \
 	    "register values x"
 
     mi_gdb_test "333-data-list-register-values f" \
-	    "333\\^done,register-values=\\\[\{number=\"0\",value=\"$float\"\},\{number=\"1\",value=\"$float\"\},.*\{number=\"71\",value=\"$float\"\}\\\]" \
+	    "333\\^done,register-values=\\\[\{number=\"0\",value=\"$float\"\},\{number=\"1\",value=\"$float\"\},.*\{number=\"87\",value=\"$float\"\}\\\]" \
 	    "register values f"
 
     mi_gdb_test "444-data-list-register-values d" \
-	    "444\\^done,register-values=\\\[\{number=\"0\",value=\"$decimal\"\}.*\{number=\"71\",value=\"$decimal\"\}\\\]" \
+	    "444\\^done,register-values=\\\[\{number=\"0\",value=\"-?$decimal\"\}.*\{number=\"87\",value=\"-?$decimal\"\}\\\]" \
 	    "register values d"
 
     mi_gdb_test "555-data-list-register-values o" \
-	    "555\\^done,register-values=\\\[\{number=\"0\",value=\"$octal\"\}.*\{number=\"71\",value=\"$octal\"\}\\\]" \
+	    "555\\^done,register-values=\\\[\{number=\"0\",value=\"$octal\"\}.*\{number=\"87\",value=\"$octal\"\}\\\]" \
 	    "register values o"
 
     mi_gdb_test "666-data-list-register-values t" \
-	    "666\\^done,register-values=\\\[\{number=\"0\",value=\"$binary\"\}.*\{number=\"71\",value=\"$binary\"\}\\\]" \
+	    "666\\^done,register-values=\\\[\{number=\"0\",value=\"$binary\"\}.*\{number=\"87\",value=\"$binary\"\}\\\]" \
 	    "register values t"
 
-    # On the sparc, registers 0-31 are int, 32-63 float, 64-71 int
+    # On the sparc, registers 0-31 are int, 32-63 float, 64-71 int, 72-87 float
 
     mi_gdb_test "777-data-list-register-values N" \
-	    "777\\^done,register-values=\\\[\{number=\"0\",value=\"$decimal\"\}.*\{number=\"31\",value=\"$decimal\"\},\{number=\"32\",value=\"$float\"\}.*\{number=\"63\",value=\"$float\"\},\{number=\"64\",value=\"$decimal\"\}.*\{number=\"71\",value=\"$decimal\"\}\\\]" \
+	    "777\\^done,register-values=\\\[\{number=\"0\",value=\"-?$decimal\"\}.*\{number=\"31\",value=\"-?$decimal\"\},\{number=\"32\",value=\"$float\"\}.*\{number=\"63\",value=\"$float\"\},\{number=\"64\",value=\"-?$decimal\"\}.*\{number=\"71\",value=\"-?$decimal\"\},\{number=\"72\",value=\"$float\"\}.*\{number=\"87\",value=\"$float\"\}\\\]" \
 	    "register values N"
 
     mi_gdb_test "888-data-list-register-values r" \
-	    "888\\^done,register-values=\\\[\{number=\"0\",value=\"$hex\"\}.*\{number=\"71\",value=\"$hex\"\}\\\]" \
+	    "888\\^done,register-values=\\\[\{number=\"0\",value=\"$hex\"\}.*\{number=\"87\",value=\"$hex\"\}\\\]" \
 	    "register values r"
 
     mi_gdb_test "999-data-list-register-names 68 69 70 71" \
-	    "999\\^done,register-names=\\\[\"pc\",\"npc\",\"fpsr\",\"cpsr\"\\\]" \
+	    "999\\^done,register-names=\\\[\"pc\",\"npc\",\"fsr\",\"csr\"\\\]" \
 	    "list names of some regs"
 
     mi_gdb_test "001-data-list-register-values x 68 69 70 71" \

Re: [PATCH]: Fix gdb.mi/mi-regs.exp

[Nick Roberts]

> 2006-04-08  David S. Miller  <davem@sunset.davemloft.net>

> 	* gdb.mi/mi-regs.exp (111-data-list-register-values x): "No registers"
> 	will get printed without a mi_cmd_data_list_register_values prefix.
> 	(*-data-list-register-*): Correct regular expressions to expect the new
> 	pseudo d? floating point registers.

Do you need to apply these changes to mi2-regs.exp also?

Should there be similar tests for other architectures?  If they are only
intended for sparc, shouldn't this file be called mi-sparc-regs.exp?


-- 
Nick                                           http://www.inet.net.nz/~nickrob

Re: [PATCH]: Fix gdb.mi/mi-regs.exp

[David S. Miller]

From: Nick Roberts <nickrob@snap.net.nz>
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2006 09:52:41 +1200

> 
> > 2006-04-08  David S. Miller  <davem@sunset.davemloft.net>
> 
> > 	* gdb.mi/mi-regs.exp (111-data-list-register-values x): "No registers"
> > 	will get printed without a mi_cmd_data_list_register_values prefix.
> > 	(*-data-list-register-*): Correct regular expressions to expect the new
> > 	pseudo d? floating point registers.
> 
> Do you need to apply these changes to mi2-regs.exp also?

Yes.

> Should there be similar tests for other architectures?  If they are only
> intended for sparc, shouldn't this file be called mi-sparc-regs.exp?

There are "XXX" style comments in there suggesting that strings
for other platforms should be added.

It is a similar situation to gdb.base/float.exp, knowledgable people
just have to get around to adding the per-target strings.

Re: [PATCH]: Fix gdb.mi/mi-regs.exp

[Nick Roberts]

 > > Should there be similar tests for other architectures?  If they are only
 > > intended for sparc, shouldn't this file be called mi-sparc-regs.exp?
 > 
 > There are "XXX" style comments in there suggesting that strings
 > for other platforms should be added.
 > 
 > It is a similar situation to gdb.base/float.exp, knowledgable people
 > just have to get around to adding the per-target strings.

But these tests are for the MI interface.  Register tests for specific
architectures could presumably go in gdb.base/regs.exp and tests in mi-regs.exp
could be more general e.g just check -data-list-register-names returns a list
of values, count them and use this information for tests on
-data-list-register-values.

Anyway, Daniel will approve your patch, I'm just thinking aloud.

-- 
Nick                                           http://www.inet.net.nz/~nickrob

Re: [PATCH]: Fix gdb.mi/mi-regs.exp

[David S. Miller]

From: Nick Roberts <nickrob@snap.net.nz>
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2006 19:05:07 +1200

> But these tests are for the MI interface.  Register tests for specific
> architectures could presumably go in gdb.base/regs.exp and tests in mi-regs.exp
> could be more general e.g just check -data-list-register-names returns a list
> of values, count them and use this information for tests on
> -data-list-register-values.

In the long term that's probably a good idea.

Re: [PATCH]: Fix gdb.mi/mi-regs.exp

[Daniel Jacobowitz]

On Mon, Apr 10, 2006 at 12:20:41AM -0700, David S. Miller wrote:
> From: Nick Roberts <nickrob@snap.net.nz>
> Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2006 19:05:07 +1200
> 
> > But these tests are for the MI interface.  Register tests for specific
> > architectures could presumably go in gdb.base/regs.exp and tests in mi-regs.exp
> > could be more general e.g just check -data-list-register-names returns a list
> > of values, count them and use this information for tests on
> > -data-list-register-values.
> 
> In the long term that's probably a good idea.

mi-regs.exp should check "the registers are internally consistent
and sane".  It could encode knowledge of which registers must be
present, or not; it works either way...

This will definitely need a refresh if my XML-based description work is
merged to trunk, since the register ordering may then be up to the
target.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery

Re: [PATCH]: Fix gdb.mi/mi-regs.exp

[Nick Roberts]

 > > > But these tests are for the MI interface.  Register tests for specific
 > > > architectures could presumably go in gdb.base/regs.exp and tests in
 > > > mi-regs.exp could be more general e.g just check
 > > > -data-list-register-names returns a list of values, count them and use
 > > > this information for tests on -data-list-register-values.
 > > 
 > > In the long term that's probably a good idea.
 > 
 > mi-regs.exp should check "the registers are internally consistent
 > and sane".  It could encode knowledge of which registers must be
 > present, or not; it works either way...

I'm not sure if you're agreeing or not.  I think I made the change to
mi_cmd_data_list_register_values which broke the test for sparc.  As I ran
the testsuite on i386, I saw no failures of course.  Clearly tests which
check the registers are internally consistent and sane for all architectures
are desirable.  Since no-one is offering to do that shall I try to write a few
generic ones as suggested above?

-- 
Nick                                           http://www.inet.net.nz/~nickrob

Re: [PATCH]: Fix gdb.mi/mi-regs.exp

[Daniel Jacobowitz]

On Tue, Apr 11, 2006 at 01:30:22PM +1200, Nick Roberts wrote:
> I'm not sure if you're agreeing or not.  I think I made the change to
> mi_cmd_data_list_register_values which broke the test for sparc.  As I ran
> the testsuite on i386, I saw no failures of course.

Right.  Although, from what David said, it was already broken by an
earlier (?) SPARC-specific change.

> Clearly tests which check the registers are internally consistent and
> sane for all architectures are desirable.  Since no-one is offering
> to do that shall I try to write a few generic ones as suggested
> above?

If you'd like to do this, by all means, please do.  For now, we can fix
up the SPARC tests, but I don't expect them to stay useful forever.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery

Re: [PATCH]: Fix gdb.mi/mi-regs.exp

[Nick Roberts]

 > > Clearly tests which check the registers are internally consistent and
 > > sane for all architectures are desirable.  Since no-one is offering
 > > to do that shall I try to write a few generic ones as suggested
 > > above?
 > 
 > If you'd like to do this, by all means, please do.  For now, we can fix
 > up the SPARC tests, but I don't expect them to stay useful forever.

As things are going to change, I think I'll leave it for the moment.  I'm
starting to realise that many things are untested and some don't even work.
I want to focus on the latter.

-- 
Nick                                           http://www.inet.net.nz/~nickrob