From: "Ulrich Weigand" <uweigand@de.ibm.com>
To: mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl (Mark Kettenis)
Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] Skip hardware breakpoint tests on OpenBSD
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 04:41:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <201103092358.p29NwipE018648@d06av02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <201103091629.p29GTPeU019522@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> from "Mark Kettenis" at Mar 09, 2011 05:29:25 PM
Mark Kettenis wrote:
> The recently introduced skip_hw_breakpoint_tests procedure is a bit
> flawed. It lists hardware platforms that have hardware breakpoints,
> but doesn't take into account that the OS running on those platforms
> has to make that functionality available to GDB. This isn't the case
> on OpenBSD (and perhaps some other operating systems as well). The
> diff below makes sure the tests are skipped on OpenBSD. However,
> perhaps instead of whitelisting generic hardware platforms, we should
> whitelis explicit hardware/OS combinations here?
I've just copied the existing tests that were spread throughout
various testcases into the new procedure ...
That said, I completely agree that this should really be specific
to the hardware/OS combinations. The question is what exactly
these ought to be. Looking through the config files, it would
appear that for the ia64, arm, powerpc and s390 architectures,
the only OS supporting watchpoints is Linux. For the x86
architectures, the list gets a lot more complex:
i[34567]86-*-go32*
i[34567]86-*-msdosdjgpp*
i[34567]86-*-cygwin*
i[34567]86-*-mingw32*
i[34567]86-*-freebsd*
i[34567]86-*-kfreebsd*-gnu
i[34567]86-*-linux*
i[34567]86-*-solaris2.[6789]
i[34567]86-*-solaris2.1[0-9]
x86_64-*-mingw*
x86_64-*-linux*
x86_64-*-solaris2.1[0-9]*
While I don't really have access to any of those (except Linux)
for testing, it probably cannot hurt to replace the generic
x86 test with a test for those specific platforms; the worst
that could go wrong is that we forgot a platform.
B.t.w. it turns out that there are architectures that support
watchpoints that haven't been mentioned in the list at all:
sparc-*-solaris2.[6789]
sparc-*-solaris2.1[0-9]
sparcv9-*-solaris2.[6789]
sparcv9-*-solaris2.1[0-9]
sparc64-*-solaris2.[6789]
sparc64-*-solaris2.1[0-9]
mips-sgi-irix5*
mips-sgi-irix6*
mips*-*-linux*
Here I'd argue it would be best for someone with access to the
platform to add them.
Thoughts?
Bye,
Ulrich
--
Dr. Ulrich Weigand
GNU Toolchain for Linux on System z and Cell BE
Ulrich.Weigand@de.ibm.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-03-09 23:58 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-03-09 17:13 Mark Kettenis
2011-03-10 4:41 ` Ulrich Weigand [this message]
2011-03-10 7:33 ` Eli Zaretskii
2011-03-10 18:31 ` Ulrich Weigand
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=201103092358.p29NwipE018648@d06av02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com \
--to=uweigand@de.ibm.com \
--cc=gdb-patches@sourceware.org \
--cc=mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox