From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19252 invoked by alias); 26 Feb 2004 23:01:01 -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 19227 invoked from network); 26 Feb 2004 23:00:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (216.129.200.20) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 26 Feb 2004 23:00:59 -0000 Received: from gnu.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 781302B92; Thu, 26 Feb 2004 18:00:50 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <403E7AA2.8050805@gnu.org> Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 23:01:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:1.4.1) Gecko/20040217 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: fnf@redhat.com Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA] Fix incorrect use of "until" command in gdb.arch/gdb1431 References: <200402192003.08113.fnf@ninemoons.com> <403E5F6C.4050001@gnu.org> <200402261529.01301.fnf@ninemoons.com> In-Reply-To: <200402261529.01301.fnf@ninemoons.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2004-02/txt/msg00784.txt.bz2 > On Thursday 26 February 2004 14:04, Andrew Cagney wrote: > >>> Hmm, "How did it ever work"? :-) > > > From what I could tell, at one time "until" did work like "advance". > There is a pretty long thread about it on the gdb or gdb-patches list, > though I can't seem to find it again with a quick search. Ah, that would explain it. The current "finish" behavior is the original "finish" behavior. There was a period (of several years) during which "finish" was broken. I guess the test was written during that period (or with such a broken GDB). "advance" came about because people wanted both the correct and broken behavior .... Andrew >>> I guess so, but keep the 1431.c specific test file > > > OK, I kept a distinct file for this test, but one that is cloned from > the 1291 test to be all assembly instead of mixed C/assembly. There > is a previously reported gcc bug that causes line numbers to be > botched in the mix C/assembly case, obscuring what we are trying to > test for here. > > I committed the following patch.