Re: [RFA] New testes for process record save/restore commands

Hui Zhu
2009-10-26T08:51:01Z

All the reverse test is pass. Thanks for your work, Paul and Michael.

Hui

On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 22:07, Paul Pluzhnikov <ppluzhnikov@google.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 11:56 PM, Hui Zhu <teawater@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I checked the consecutive-precsave.exp, this issue is because:
>> x /2i $pc
>> => 0x8048377 <foo+3>:   mov    0x80495a4,%edx
>>   0x804837d <foo+9>:   mov    0x80495a8,%eax
>>
>> This is the new feature of gdb from Paul.
>>
>> Paul, could you add a switch for this "=>"?
>
> When I was fixing these tests:
>
>  2009-10-20  Paul Pluzhnikov  <ppluzhnikov@google.com>
>
>        * gdb.base/consecutive.exp: Adjust.
>        * gdb.base/display.exp: Likewise.
>        * gdb.base/pc-fp.exp: Likewise.
>        * gdb.base/sigbpt.exp: Likewise.
>
> I did think about making the '=> ' marker optional, but rejected the
> idea: it seems that the only context where you'd really want to turn
> it off is the test suite.
>
> OTOH, Daniel Jacobowitz did write on Mon, 19 Oct 2009 14:48:53 -0400:
>
>> For whatever it's worth, I miss the extra screen real estate stolen by
>> the enlarged prompt (or even the narrower prompt).
>
> so I'll take a vote.
>
> The 'set print program-counter-marker on/off' feature itself is
> trivial to implement, I believe.
>
> Thanks,
> --
> Paul Pluzhnikov
>