From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18643 invoked by alias); 12 Jun 2012 13:17:27 -0000 Received: (qmail 18628 invoked by uid 22791); 12 Jun 2012 13:17:25 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_NO X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 13:17:13 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66B921C69D0; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 09:17:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 73I-WVkcI-o6; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 09:17:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB9671C71A4; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 09:17:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id D8539145621; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 06:16:50 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 13:17:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Luis Gustavo Cc: Anton Blanchard , gdb-patches@sourceware.org, emachado@linux.vnet.ibm.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] Fix ppc64 single step over atomic sequence testcase Message-ID: <20120612131650.GP2687@adacore.com> References: <20120606135557.7da37cbe@kryten> <20120611193326.GN2687@adacore.com> <20120612224515.15bc044d@kryten> <4FD73EB2.3070705@mentor.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4FD73EB2.3070705@mentor.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) 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: 2012-06/txt/msg00339.txt.bz2 > GDB is supposed to skip eacho sequence (__asm__ block) in response > to a "next", but it may have had its behavior changed from when i > originally wrote this. It seems to take multiple next's to get to a > different __asm__ block now, so it seems to be broken. > > It may be a difference in GCC's debuginfo output or GDB just got smarter. I might be wrong, but I don't remember us changing anything in this area. "next/step" behavior is really determined by the line info generated by the compiler. If the compiler was changed from not generated a line entry for the __asm__ blocks, and now does, then it'll change GDB's behavior. If next/step behavior testing is important to the testcase, then it would seem to make sense to convert the testcase to using an assembly file instead. -- Joel