From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29506 invoked by alias); 14 Sep 2007 14:24:39 -0000 Received: (qmail 29496 invoked by uid 22791); 14 Sep 2007 14:24:38 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from NaN.false.org (HELO nan.false.org) (208.75.86.248) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 14 Sep 2007 14:24:33 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8212C982A2; Fri, 14 Sep 2007 14:24:31 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61B479829E; Fri, 14 Sep 2007 14:24:31 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1IWC5u-0007TA-KG; Fri, 14 Sep 2007 10:24:30 -0400 Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 14:24:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: "Maciej W. Rozycki" Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, "Maciej W. Rozycki" Subject: Re: mi*-watch.exp: Test both hardware and software watchpoints Message-ID: <20070914142430.GA28551@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: "Maciej W. Rozycki" , gdb-patches@sourceware.org, "Maciej W. Rozycki" References: <20070911161922.GA16571@caradoc.them.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.15 (2007-04-09) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2007-09/txt/msg00180.txt.bz2 On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 03:12:51PM +0100, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote: > On Tue, 11 Sep 2007, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > > It isn't generally sufficient, either. It's implemented on PowerPC > > but the test still fails. The frame pointer is corrupted one > > instruction before the epilogue is detected, and I couldn't come up > > with a reasonable way of making it work. > > Hmm, extending the range of the epilogue? Just an obvious thought -- I > have no competence with PowerPC. I don't think it's safe to extend the epilogue arbitrarily - we can't recognize the instruction because we have no way to query where the frame pointer is at this point. We might extend it arbitrarily far backwards if we're not careful. > > In principle, I think so, but give it a day or two to see if anyone > > objects. How about xfailing the out of scope test for software > > watchpoints? > > Well, should I take it as a declaration of no intent to fix them? I don't intend to fix it right now, anyway. And I really do not like leaving failing tests. Every few years, I try to reduce the failures for a couple of platforms to zero. I'm going to do it again after I finish with multi-threaded watchpoints (next week hopefully; patches coming this weekend). I think the right fix is going to have to involve GCC. It should emit correct unwind info for the epilogue; even without also adding the epilogue markers to the line table, correct unwind info will solve this problem 99% of the time. > + set old_prefix $pf_prefix > + set pf_prefix "$pf_prefix $type: " Is there a double space here? IIUC pf_prefix will be something like "gdb.mi/mi-watch.exp: ". Otherwise OK to commit. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery