From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10999 invoked by alias); 13 Apr 2011 11:15:29 -0000 Received: (qmail 10987 invoked by uid 22791); 13 Apr 2011 11:15:28 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-5.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FAKE_REPLY_C,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 13 Apr 2011 11:15:16 +0000 Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p3DBF8uW022753 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 13 Apr 2011 07:15:08 -0400 Received: from host1.jankratochvil.net (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p3DBF6hU002200 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 13 Apr 2011 07:15:07 -0400 Received: from host1.jankratochvil.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by host1.jankratochvil.net (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p3DBF5BO029283; Wed, 13 Apr 2011 13:15:05 +0200 Received: (from jkratoch@localhost) by host1.jankratochvil.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) id p3DBF4FK029277; Wed, 13 Apr 2011 13:15:04 +0200 Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2011 11:15:00 -0000 From: Jan Kratochvil To: Edjunior Barbosa Machado Cc: "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" , Yao Qi Subject: Re: [patch] Re: "optimized out" on gdb.base/gdb1090.exp Message-ID: <20110413111504.GA28987@host1.jankratochvil.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4DA4FBB3.50201@codesourcery.com> <4DA4C26C.8010304@linux.vnet.ibm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) 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: 2011-04/txt/msg00184.txt.bz2 On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 23:21:48 +0200, Edjunior Barbosa Machado wrote: > Checking out the original PR 1090 that originated this testcase, it doesn't > mention any particularity regarding frame or backtrace, which leads me to > believe that changing where 'print' is called should not affect the main > focus of the testcase. PR 1090 should have been about "allocate a variable into multiple registers" which is still being tested so the testcase should be OK even this way. <2><8d>: Abbrev Number: 8 (DW_TAG_variable) <8e> DW_AT_name : s24 [...] <98> DW_AT_location : 6 byte block: 53 93 4 56 93 4 (DW_OP_reg3 (ebx); DW_OP_piece: 4; DW_OP_reg6 (esi); DW_OP_piece: 4) On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 03:26:11 +0200, Yao Qi wrote: > On 04/13/2011 05:21 AM, Edjunior Barbosa Machado wrote: > > > > 2011-04-12 Edjunior Machado > > > > * testsuite/gdb.base/gdb1090.exp: change breakpoint location to > > read the > > Please remove spurious spaces between "to" and "read". > > > content of 's24' correctly (avoiding "optimized out"). > > * testsuite/gdb.base/gdb1090.c: add comment in order to set breakpoint. > ^^^^^^^^^ Delete "testsuite/", since this changelog entry will > go to gdb/testsuite/ChangLog. And the first letter of the sentence should be capital. http://www.gnu.org/prep/standards/html_node/Style-of-Change-Logs.html#Style-of-Change-Logs Please check it in with those changes. Thanks, Jan