From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-47491-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 13722 invoked by alias); 1 Feb 2007 22:53:51 -0000
Received: (qmail 13707 invoked by uid 22791); 1 Feb 2007 22:53:51 -0000
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from sibelius.xs4all.nl (HELO brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl) (82.92.89.47)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 01 Feb 2007 22:53:46 +0000
Received: from brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl (kettenis@localhost.sibelius.xs4all.nl [127.0.0.1]) 	by brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id l11MrYm6028132; 	Thu, 1 Feb 2007 23:53:34 +0100 (CET)
Received: (from kettenis@localhost) 	by brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.13.8/8.13.8/Submit) id l11MrYDH006566; 	Thu, 1 Feb 2007 23:53:34 +0100 (CET)
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2007 22:53:00 -0000
Message-Id: <200702012253.l11MrYDH006566@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl>
From: Mark Kettenis <mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl>
To: drow@false.org
CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
In-reply-to: <20070131151001.GA25714@nevyn.them.org> (message from Daniel 	Jacobowitz on Wed, 31 Jan 2007 10:10:01 -0500)
Subject: Re: Testsuite failures in gdb.base/callfuncs.exp
References: <jebqkf9y09.fsf@sykes.suse.de> <20070131124926.GA18380@nevyn.them.org> <je3b5r9u67.fsf@sykes.suse.de> <20070131141530.GA22362@nevyn.them.org> <jey7nj8csm.fsf@sykes.suse.de> <20070131151001.GA25714@nevyn.them.org>
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb-patches.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2007-02/txt/msg00011.txt.bz2

> Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 10:10:01 -0500
> From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
> 
> On Wed, Jan 31, 2007 at 03:56:57PM +0100, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> > Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org> writes:
> > 
> > > On Wed, Jan 31, 2007 at 02:56:16PM +0100, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> > >> bsp can only be modified by writing to bspstore, which is what the kernel
> > >> does behind our back.  gdb itself never writes to bspstore.  Thus the
> > >> value of bspstore does not really matter.
> > >
> > > Could we restore it if we tried?
> > 
> > Why would we want to?
> 
> I don't know.  To leave the inferior's state as untouched as possible
> after an artificial function call.
> 
> If you're convinced that's not useful, patch is OK.

No I think there actually is a problem.  Either the bspstore matters
or it doesn't.  If it doesn't, GDB should just not include it in the
list of registers it displays.  If it does matter, the test is showing
a genuine bug.

Mark