From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26061 invoked by alias); 2 Jul 2004 13:24:42 -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 26047 invoked from network); 2 Jul 2004 13:24:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 2 Jul 2004 13:24:41 -0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i62DOee3005893 for ; Fri, 2 Jul 2004 09:24:41 -0400 Received: from localhost.redhat.com (porkchop.devel.redhat.com [172.16.58.2]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i62DOZ026411; Fri, 2 Jul 2004 09:24:40 -0400 Received: from redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6609F2B9D; Fri, 2 Jul 2004 09:24:24 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <40E56208.70409@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 02 Jul 2004 13:24:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-GB; rv:1.4.1) Gecko/20040217 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Daniel Jacobowitz , Michael Elizabeth Chastain Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [rfa] New test sigbpt.{c,exp} References: <20040630035317.5BEF84B104@berman.michael-chastain.com> <40E2DB52.5060702@redhat.com> <20040630153012.GA18499@nevyn.them.org> In-Reply-To: <20040630153012.GA18499@nevyn.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2004-07/txt/msg00015.txt.bz2 > On Wed, Jun 30, 2004 at 11:25:06AM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote: > >>> Are there [get_kernel_info] and [get_software_singlestep] testsuite calls? > > > I don't even know a reliable way to find out if we're using software > singlestep from the GDB prompt, besides trying to grok the multiarch > dump (and I'm not sure that would work). Perhaps we should add one. Rooting round in the architecture vector would work. (I have a strong dislike for those hardwired .exp predicates. The testsuite should separatly: query GDB for a mechanisms status; cross check with .exp that the status matches what is expected.) > Is [get_kernel_info] a good idea? Version numbers don't tell you much; > everyone seems to port fixes every which way. Or [kernel_..._p]. We have to assume that kernel vendors have vaguely sane branding. I'll kfail this since, in theory at least, GDB can work around the breakage by using software single-step. Andrew