From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24690 invoked by alias); 8 Oct 2007 18:55:15 -0000 Received: (qmail 24681 invoked by uid 22791); 8 Oct 2007 18:55:15 -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; Mon, 08 Oct 2007 18:55:11 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF47098337; Mon, 8 Oct 2007 18:55:08 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C95FC980BD; Mon, 8 Oct 2007 18:55:08 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1Iexkx-0007Tv-Qc; Mon, 08 Oct 2007 14:55:07 -0400 Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2007 19:06:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Luis Machado Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] PPC Call-clobbered registers testcase Message-ID: <20071008185507.GA28479@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Luis Machado , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <1190644886.4375.2.camel@localhost> <1190726512.4376.0.camel@localhost> <20071006161230.GA10179@caradoc.them.org> <1191869140.4322.10.camel@localhost> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1191869140.4322.10.camel@localhost> 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: 2007-10/txt/msg00175.txt.bz2 On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 03:45:40PM -0300, Luis Machado wrote: > Thanks for reviewing, > > Hopefully i addressed all of the issues in this updated version. I'm > aiming at gdb.opt for this one. I think this won't work without a bit of extra work to add the new directory, e.g. during configure. But I can take care of that. > As for the last comment, about passing on correct values, the correct > behaviour, at least in this test case, is for GDB to display those > values as optimized since they no longer are proven to be correct. > Anything i'm failing to see in this case? Yes. If the test runs on x86, they may not be in registers - so they may still be known, if they were stored on the stack. Other than that, the testcase looks fine to me. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery