From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7801 invoked by alias); 10 Sep 2013 15:30:25 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 7791 invoked by uid 89); 10 Sep 2013 15:30:24 -0000 Received: from service87.mimecast.com (HELO service87.mimecast.com) (91.220.42.44) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Tue, 10 Sep 2013 15:30:24 +0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-3.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_NO,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: service87.mimecast.com Received: from cam-owa1.Emea.Arm.com (fw-tnat.cambridge.arm.com [217.140.96.21]) by service87.mimecast.com; Tue, 10 Sep 2013 16:30:21 +0100 Received: from e103625-lin.cambridge.arm.com ([10.1.255.212]) by cam-owa1.Emea.Arm.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.0); Tue, 10 Sep 2013 16:30:19 +0100 Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 15:30:00 -0000 From: Vidya Praveen To: Yao Qi Cc: "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Test case for entry values. Message-ID: <20130910153019.GA2535@e103625-lin.cambridge.arm.com> References: <1376379586-24150-1-git-send-email-yao@codesourcery.com> <1376379586-24150-2-git-send-email-yao@codesourcery.com> <5220B1B6.2000304@arm.com> <20130830152927.GC9666@e103625-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <52213712.1030700@codesourcery.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <52213712.1030700@codesourcery.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-MC-Unique: 113091016302106801 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2013-09/txt/msg00340.txt.bz2 On Sat, Aug 31, 2013 at 01:21:38AM +0100, Yao Qi wrote: > On 08/30/2013 11:29 PM, Vidya Praveen wrote: > > +if [string equal $bar_call_foo ""] { > > + fail "Find the call or branch instruction offset in bar" > > + # The following test makes no sense if the offset is unknown. We = need > > + # to update the pattern above to match call or branch instruction = for > > + # the target architecture. > > + return -1 > > +} > > > > This test fails for ARM targets as they generate 'bl'. >=20 > As the comment said, the pattern can be updated to match instruction > 'bl'. I don't know branch instructions of all architectures, but > people familiar with one arch probably can add its branch instruction > into the pattern without much effort. OK. But isn't it better to have the condition (!gdb_target_supports_trace) that checks if the target supports tracing, in the beginning of the test rather than much later? I can modify to use an appropriate regular expression based on the=20 architecture. But I am trying to see the point when the test eventually ends as UNSUPPORTED. Regards VP >=20 > --=20 > Yao (??????) >=20