* [RFA/testsuite] Handle MIPS in step-test.exp
@ 2002-10-21 19:02 Daniel Jacobowitz
2002-10-22 7:19 ` Andrew Cagney
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Daniel Jacobowitz @ 2002-10-21 19:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gdb-patches; +Cc: fnasser
The MIPS PIC calling conventions have a $gp register which needs to be
reloaded after function calls, so they need the same treatment IA-64 and PA
do in step-test. I also needed to finish stepping past one call before
looking for the next or the test showed a bogus failure.
Is this OK?
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer
2002-10-21 Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com>
* gdb.base/step-test.exp: Allow MIPS to return to the line of a
function call.
Index: testsuite/gdb.base/step-test.exp
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/step-test.exp,v
retrieving revision 1.5
diff -u -p -r1.5 step-test.exp
--- testsuite/gdb.base/step-test.exp 5 Apr 2002 00:30:09 -0000 1.5
+++ testsuite/gdb.base/step-test.exp 13 Oct 2002 22:55:02 -0000
@@ -78,7 +78,8 @@ gdb_test "step" ".*${decimal}.*myglob.*"
# On PA64, we end up at a different instruction than PA32.
# On IA-64, we also end up on callee instead of on the next line due
# to the restoration of the global pointer (which is a caller-save).
-if { [istarget "hppa2.0w-hp-hpux*"] || [istarget "ia64-*-*"]} {
+# Similarly on MIPS PIC targets.
+if { [istarget "hppa2.0w-hp-hpux*"] || [istarget "ia64-*-*"] || [istarget "mips*-*-*"]} {
send_gdb "finish\n"
gdb_expect {
-re ".*${decimal}.*a.*5.*= a.*3.*$gdb_prompt $" { pass "step out 1" }
@@ -176,8 +177,11 @@ gdb_expect {
# On PA64, we end up at a different instruction than PA32.
# On IA-64, we end up on callee instead of on the following line due
# to the restoration of the global pointer.
- if { [istarget "hppa2.0w-hp-hpux*"] || [istarget "ia64-*-*"] } {
+ # Similarly on MIPS PIC targets.
+ if { [istarget "hppa2.0w-hp-hpux*"] || [istarget "ia64-*-*"] || [istarget "mips*-*-*"] } {
pass "stepi: finish call 2"
+ test_i "stepi: past call" "stepi" \
+ ".*${decimal}.*callee.*STEPI" ".*${decimal}.*callee.*NEXTI"
} else {
fail "stepi: finish call 2"
return
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFA/testsuite] Handle MIPS in step-test.exp
2002-10-21 19:02 [RFA/testsuite] Handle MIPS in step-test.exp Daniel Jacobowitz
@ 2002-10-22 7:19 ` Andrew Cagney
2002-10-22 7:25 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Andrew Cagney @ 2002-10-22 7:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Daniel Jacobowitz; +Cc: gdb-patches, fnasser
> The MIPS PIC calling conventions have a $gp register which needs to be
> reloaded after function calls, so they need the same treatment IA-64 and PA
> do in step-test. I also needed to finish stepping past one call before
> looking for the next or the test showed a bogus failure.
Is this a straight GDB bug?
Andrew
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFA/testsuite] Handle MIPS in step-test.exp
2002-10-22 7:19 ` Andrew Cagney
@ 2002-10-22 7:25 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2002-11-27 10:55 ` Andrew Cagney
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Daniel Jacobowitz @ 2002-10-22 7:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andrew Cagney; +Cc: gdb-patches, fnasser
On Tue, Oct 22, 2002 at 10:19:30AM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> >The MIPS PIC calling conventions have a $gp register which needs to be
> >reloaded after function calls, so they need the same treatment IA-64 and PA
> >do in step-test. I also needed to finish stepping past one call before
> >looking for the next or the test showed a bogus failure.
>
> Is this a straight GDB bug?
It's a straight testsuite bug. The test is full of assumptions about
when nexti will move to the next source line.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFA/testsuite] Handle MIPS in step-test.exp
2002-10-22 7:25 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
@ 2002-11-27 10:55 ` Andrew Cagney
2002-12-03 7:18 ` Fernando Nasser
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Andrew Cagney @ 2002-11-27 10:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Daniel Jacobowitz; +Cc: gdb-patches, fnasser
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 562 bytes --]
> On Tue, Oct 22, 2002 at 10:19:30AM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote:
>
>> >The MIPS PIC calling conventions have a $gp register which needs to be
>> >reloaded after function calls, so they need the same treatment IA-64 and PA
>> >do in step-test. I also needed to finish stepping past one call before
>> >looking for the next or the test showed a bogus failure.
>
>>
>> Is this a straight GDB bug?
>
>
> It's a straight testsuite bug. The test is full of assumptions about
> when nexti will move to the next source line.
Ah, m'kay by me. Fernando?
Andrew
[-- Attachment #2: mailbox-message://ac131313@movemail/fsf/gdb/patches#3835101 --]
[-- Type: message/rfc822, Size: 4786 bytes --]
From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com>
To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Cc: fnasser@redhat.com
Subject: [RFA/testsuite] Handle MIPS in step-test.exp
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 22:02:18 -0400
Message-ID: <20021022020218.GA22839@nevyn.them.org>
The MIPS PIC calling conventions have a $gp register which needs to be
reloaded after function calls, so they need the same treatment IA-64 and PA
do in step-test. I also needed to finish stepping past one call before
looking for the next or the test showed a bogus failure.
Is this OK?
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer
2002-10-21 Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com>
* gdb.base/step-test.exp: Allow MIPS to return to the line of a
function call.
Index: testsuite/gdb.base/step-test.exp
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/step-test.exp,v
retrieving revision 1.5
diff -u -p -r1.5 step-test.exp
--- testsuite/gdb.base/step-test.exp 5 Apr 2002 00:30:09 -0000 1.5
+++ testsuite/gdb.base/step-test.exp 13 Oct 2002 22:55:02 -0000
@@ -78,7 +78,8 @@ gdb_test "step" ".*${decimal}.*myglob.*"
# On PA64, we end up at a different instruction than PA32.
# On IA-64, we also end up on callee instead of on the next line due
# to the restoration of the global pointer (which is a caller-save).
-if { [istarget "hppa2.0w-hp-hpux*"] || [istarget "ia64-*-*"]} {
+# Similarly on MIPS PIC targets.
+if { [istarget "hppa2.0w-hp-hpux*"] || [istarget "ia64-*-*"] || [istarget "mips*-*-*"]} {
send_gdb "finish\n"
gdb_expect {
-re ".*${decimal}.*a.*5.*= a.*3.*$gdb_prompt $" { pass "step out 1" }
@@ -176,8 +177,11 @@ gdb_expect {
# On PA64, we end up at a different instruction than PA32.
# On IA-64, we end up on callee instead of on the following line due
# to the restoration of the global pointer.
- if { [istarget "hppa2.0w-hp-hpux*"] || [istarget "ia64-*-*"] } {
+ # Similarly on MIPS PIC targets.
+ if { [istarget "hppa2.0w-hp-hpux*"] || [istarget "ia64-*-*"] || [istarget "mips*-*-*"] } {
pass "stepi: finish call 2"
+ test_i "stepi: past call" "stepi" \
+ ".*${decimal}.*callee.*STEPI" ".*${decimal}.*callee.*NEXTI"
} else {
fail "stepi: finish call 2"
return
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFA/testsuite] Handle MIPS in step-test.exp
2002-11-27 10:55 ` Andrew Cagney
@ 2002-12-03 7:18 ` Fernando Nasser
2002-12-03 7:55 ` Andrew Cagney
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Fernando Nasser @ 2002-12-03 7:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andrew Cagney; +Cc: Daniel Jacobowitz, gdb-patches
Andrew Cagney wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 22, 2002 at 10:19:30AM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote:
>>
>>> >The MIPS PIC calling conventions have a $gp register which needs to be
>>> >reloaded after function calls, so they need the same treatment IA-64
>>> and PA
>>> >do in step-test. I also needed to finish stepping past one call before
>>> >looking for the next or the test showed a bogus failure.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Is this a straight GDB bug?
>>
>>
>>
>> It's a straight testsuite bug. The test is full of assumptions about
>> when nexti will move to the next source line.
>
>
> Ah, m'kay by me. Fernando?
>
'Course. Thanks Daniel. Please check it in.
Regards to all,
Fernando
--
Fernando Nasser
Red Hat Canada Ltd. E-Mail: fnasser@redhat.com
2323 Yonge Street, Suite #300
Toronto, Ontario M4P 2C9
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFA/testsuite] Handle MIPS in step-test.exp
2002-12-03 7:18 ` Fernando Nasser
@ 2002-12-03 7:55 ` Andrew Cagney
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Andrew Cagney @ 2002-12-03 7:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Fernando Nasser; +Cc: Daniel Jacobowitz, gdb-patches
Just a PS. Fernando and I just figured out that any e-mail I sent
directly to him disappeared into the ether. Just me, and just that one
way .....
Have to love this technology.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2002-12-03 15:55 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2002-10-21 19:02 [RFA/testsuite] Handle MIPS in step-test.exp Daniel Jacobowitz
2002-10-22 7:19 ` Andrew Cagney
2002-10-22 7:25 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2002-11-27 10:55 ` Andrew Cagney
2002-12-03 7:18 ` Fernando Nasser
2002-12-03 7:55 ` Andrew Cagney
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox