From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11707 invoked by alias); 5 Nov 2002 00:25:59 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 11700 invoked from network); 5 Nov 2002 00:25:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (216.138.202.10) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 5 Nov 2002 00:25:58 -0000 Received: from redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88F8E3E18; Mon, 4 Nov 2002 19:25:57 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3DC71015.7040300@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2002 16:25:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:1.0.0) Gecko/20020824 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Michael Snyder Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [wanted] Test of GDB modifying a value in a register References: <3DC31374.5060902@redhat.com> <3DC70A0F.CB818723@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-11/txt/msg00036.txt.bz2 > Andrew Cagney wrote: > >> >> Hello, >> >> In doing a further cleanup of the frame code, I discovered that the >> current testsuite isn't testing the codepaths that write a value in a >> register. >> >> That is, things like: >> >> (gdb) set $pc = 10 >> register int i; >> (gdb) set i = 10; >> >> Anyone interested in comming up with, or have a test case? > > > > Well, $pc is the only one I can think of that we can count on > being defined on all targets -- and based on some past conversations > with you, I'm wondering if even that is a safe assumption? > > Basically, we have almost no tests of register functionality, > and yes it would be good if we did. Already done :-) GCC, at least takes sufficient notice of: >> register int i; >> (gdb) set i = 10; for it to be possible to come up with useful tests (sufficiently useful to find wierd bugs! :-). See: http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2002-11/msg00019.html Andrew