From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-81529-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 6924 invoked by alias); 9 Jun 2011 11:19:06 -0000
Received: (qmail 6916 invoked by uid 22791); 9 Jun 2011 11:19:05 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.9 required=5.0	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,TW_XF,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from sibelius.xs4all.nl (HELO glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl) (83.163.83.176)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 09 Jun 2011 11:18:51 +0000
Received: from glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl (kettenis@localhost [127.0.0.1])	by glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p59BHTqF002448;	Thu, 9 Jun 2011 13:17:29 +0200 (CEST)
Received: (from kettenis@localhost)	by glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) id p59BHRWi025356;	Thu, 9 Jun 2011 13:17:27 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2011 11:19:00 -0000
Message-Id: <201106091117.p59BHRWi025356@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl>
From: Mark Kettenis <mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl>
To: yao@codesourcery.com
CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
In-reply-to: <4DF09229.4070704@codesourcery.com> (message from Yao Qi on Thu,	09 Jun 2011 17:28:09 +0800)
Subject: Re: [patch, testsuite] gdb.base/savedregs.exp: SIGSEGV -> SIGILL
References:  <4DF09229.4070704@codesourcery.com>
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: 2011-06/txt/msg00127.txt.bz2

> Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2011 17:28:09 +0800
> From: Yao Qi <yao@codesourcery.com>
> 
> In current gdb.base/savedregs.exp, signal handler is installed for
> signal SIGSEGV, and SIGSEGV is trigger by `*(char *)0 = 0;'.  However,
> on non-mmu uclinux system, writing to an address 0x0 doesn't trigger
> SIGSEGV.
> 
> In my patch, SIGILL is chosen to replace SIGSEGV.  One assumption here
> is that 0xffff is an invalid instruction on all ports.

Please don't do this.  You're changing the test significantly.  And
there is no guarantee that 0xffff is an invalid instruction.  Heck
most platforms don't even have 16-bit instructions.