From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-70515-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 21865 invoked by alias); 28 Feb 2010 14:35:22 -0000
Received: (qmail 21844 invoked by uid 22791); 28 Feb 2010 14:35:21 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 	tests=AWL,BAYES_00
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (38.113.113.100)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sun, 28 Feb 2010 14:35:13 +0000
Received: (qmail 28706 invoked from network); 28 Feb 2010 14:35:11 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO caradoc.them.org) (dan@127.0.0.2)   by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 28 Feb 2010 14:35:11 -0000
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2010 14:35:00 -0000
From: Daniel Jacobowitz <dan@codesourcery.com>
To: Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@redhat.com>
Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: [patch] infcall: Remove gdb_assert ($sp underflow)
Message-ID: <20100228143508.GC1556@caradoc.them.org>
Mail-Followup-To: Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@redhat.com>, 	gdb-patches@sourceware.org
References: <20100219224805.GA9681@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net>  <20100226225249.GA15019@caradoc.them.org>  <20100227004634.GA9742@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20100227004634.GA9742@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
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: 2010-02/txt/msg00674.txt.bz2

On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 01:46:34AM +0100, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
> The tests have been already producing:
> 
> PASS: gdb.base/callfuncs.exp: sp=0: set $old_sp = $sp
> PASS: gdb.base/callfuncs.exp: sp=0: set $sp = 0
> PASS: gdb.base/callfuncs.exp: sp=0: call doubleit (1)
> PASS: gdb.base/callfuncs.exp: sp=0: set $sp = $old_sp
> PASS: gdb.base/callfuncs.exp: sp=-1: set $old_sp = $sp
> PASS: gdb.base/callfuncs.exp: sp=-1: set $sp = -1
> PASS: gdb.base/callfuncs.exp: sp=-1: call doubleit (1)
> PASS: gdb.base/callfuncs.exp: sp=-1: set $sp = $old_sp
> 

Oh, you're right.  I missed pf_prefix.  Either way is fine with me.

> +    gdb_test {sp == 0: call doubleit (1)}

Except what does this do?  I've never seen this syntax before, I'm
surprised that it works.

I think the patch is otherwise OK.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery