From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Fernando Nasser To: Andrew Cagney Cc: Mark Kettenis , gdb-patches@sourceware.cygnus.com, cagney@cygnus.com Subject: Re: [RFA] Testsuite addition for x86 linux GDB and SIGALRM fix Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2001 14:21:00 -0000 Message-id: <3B4A2056.4D58E307@cygnus.com> References: <200005192321.e4JNLEv13368@delius.kettenis.local> <3B3ABD6E.1040304@cygnus.com> X-SW-Source: 2001-07/msg00212.html Andrew Cagney wrote: > > Anyone? > > Andrew > > > Here's the test I promised Andrew a while ago for the fix for the > > problem reported by Jonathan Larmour: > > > > http://sourceware.cygnus.com/ml/gdb/2000-q1/msg00803.html > > > > The fix has already been checked in, the problem is still mentioned in > > the TODO file (let's keep it there until this test has been added). > > > > I verified that some of these tests (the "stepi" and "nexti" tests) > > do fail without my fix to infrun.c. > > > > I'm not sure to what extent the use of setitimer() is portable. > > However, it is hard to come up with a test that doesn't use it. > > > > > > 2000-05-20 Mark Kettenis > > > > Add tests for stepping with pending signals. > > * gdb.base/step-alarm.exp: New file. > > * gdb.base/step-alarm.c: New file. > > > > > > + -re ".*${decimal}.*a.*5.*= a.*3.*$gdb_prompt $" { pass "step out 1" } > > + -re ".*${decimal}.*callee.*INTO.*$gdb_prompt $" { pass "step out 2" } These should be just "step out" > > + fail "Can't run to main" > > + fail "Can't run to line 57" > > + pass "stepi: finish call 2" > > + fail "stepi: finish call 2" These should just be "stepi: finish call" W.r.t. the tests for HP and IA64 I sincerely regret that we do not have two commands: "finishi" and "finish". The current behavior of "finish" (stop at the assembler instruction after the call) is very unsettling for someone who is doing source level debugging -- in this case it should, after returning, single step until the end of the sourceline where the call is ("if it is not at the beginning of a source line after the return, single step to the end of it" would do). Anyway, since we have such weird behavior, I agree that, in this specific case, we can accept both results as there is always a possibility that arbitrary targets will have extra instructions in a source line after the call instruction. -- Fernando Nasser Red Hat - Toronto E-Mail: fnasser@redhat.com 2323 Yonge Street, Suite #300 Toronto, Ontario M4P 2C9