From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15244 invoked by alias); 1 Dec 2011 18:53:49 -0000 Received: (qmail 15235 invoked by uid 22791); 1 Dec 2011 18:53:48 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-7.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS 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; Thu, 01 Dec 2011 18:53:30 +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 pB1IrET7027281 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Thu, 1 Dec 2011 13:53:30 -0500 Received: from host2.jankratochvil.net (ovpn-116-69.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.69]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id pB1HS7lC021960 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 1 Dec 2011 12:28:10 -0500 Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2011 18:53:00 -0000 From: Jan Kratochvil To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFA] Allow setting breakpoints on inline functions (PR 10738) Message-ID: <20111201172807.GA5605@host2.jankratochvil.net> References: <20111129150200.GB3425@redhat.com> <20111130201848.GA12763@host2.jankratochvil.net> <20111201134058.GB3708@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20111201134058.GB3708@redhat.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: 2011-12/txt/msg00006.txt.bz2 On Thu, 01 Dec 2011 14:40:58 +0100, Gary Benson wrote: > Are you saying I should move the testcase from gdb.opt and into > gdb.dwarf2? I can do that. > > Is there some difference between the way the various directories > of tests are treated? And, is there something I should read to help > decide where to put tests? It is not just about the directory name. The goal is that in gdb.dwarf2/ you provide .S files and not .c files. That is they are precompiled, and therefore independent from possible compiler changes. The tests should test GDB, not the compiler. The drawback is if you generate that .S files by `gcc -S -dA' it starts to be arch-dependent. Typically the tests there are either i386 or x86_64 that way. There is a way to make them arch-independent (such as gdb.dwarf2/dw2-skip-prologue.* and others) but it is a lot of hand coding which is not required, it is only voluntary (f.e. I do them, Tom does not). > As I understand it the -Winline is there to cause the test to fail > if the methods don't get inlined. I may very well be wrong, I don't > understand the syntax 100%, but as I read it any unexpected compiler > output causes gdb_compile to assume the compilation failed. OK, thanks for info, I see now. > Thanks, I added the extra '\'s on my branch. Would it be better > to to use {} here, or does that make other changes? Some people prefer it that way some the other way. By using {} you prevent one level of interpretation. Therefore it halves the number of backslashes. But it also prevents you from using \r\n or $variable insertions, in those cases you still have to use "" and double the number of backslashes there. Thanks, Jan