From: Jeff Johnston <jjohnstn@redhat.com>
To: Michael Elizabeth Chastain <mec.gnu@mindspring.com>
Cc: cagney@gnu.org, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: [RFA]: Fix jmain.exp to xfail for break at main
Date: Thu, 08 Jul 2004 15:34:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <40ED6991.7080505@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20040708034234.5BDA64B104@berman.michael-chastain.com>
Michael Elizabeth Chastain wrote:
> jj> Currently, the gdb.java/jmain.exp test has hard-coded line 6 as the
> jj> expected line number for a break at jmain.main (java.lang.String[]).
> jj> This occurs for gcc 3.3 and is incorrect. Line 6 is the end brace for
> jj> the main routine. As of gcc 3.4, the line number is reported to be line
> jj> 4. This also isn't what gdb wants as this points to the open brace.
> jj> The desired result is that we point to line 5 which is the first line in
> jj> main (return statement). That said, I have changed the expected line to
> jj> be 5 and set the test as an XFAIL.
>
> Dunno what Andrew will say about this patch but I don't think it's good.
>
I did talk to Andrew briefly about this.
> XFAIL means 'external fail'. If you add an XFAIL to the test suite, I
> want to see more analysis about what the bug is -- the best thing is an
> actual gcc PR number. In the gcc PR is a copy of jmain.java and the
> assembly language output and an explanation of why the assembly language
> output is incorrect.
>
> What does gcc HEAD do?
>
It gives line 4. I meant to imply that above when I said "since 3.4", but I'll
clarify it here. For a similar C test case, it points to the return statement.
It definitely should not be line 6 in any circumstance.
> If gcc HEAD actually gives line 5, then I would do this in the test
> script:
>
> # gcc HEAD 2004-07-05 marks the first line as 5, which is correct.
> # gcc 3.3.4 -gdwarf-2 marks the first line as line 6.
> # gcc 3.4.1 -gdwarf-2 marks the first line as line 4.
> set bpmain "Breakpoint .* file .*jmain.java, line 5\."
>
> If gcc HEAD gives some other line, then I think you need to file
> a PR against gcc. It may be low priority and not fixed for years,
> in which case you can XFAIL the test with that PR number.
>
Ok, I will create the PR and resubmit the patch.
> Michael C
>
> ===
>
> 2004-07-07 Jeff Johnston <jjohnstn@redhat.com>
>
> * gdb.java/jmain.exp: Fix expected line number for main to
> break at. Set XFAIL for break at main test since gcj does not
> provide line number info for first statement in main.
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-07-08 15:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-07-08 3:42 Michael Elizabeth Chastain
2004-07-08 15:34 ` Jeff Johnston [this message]
2004-07-08 18:20 ` Jeff Johnston
2004-07-16 21:09 ` Andrew Cagney
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2004-07-08 19:01 Michael Elizabeth Chastain
2004-07-08 19:41 ` Andrew Cagney
2004-07-08 21:01 ` Jeff Johnston
2004-07-07 20:23 Jeff Johnston
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=40ED6991.7080505@redhat.com \
--to=jjohnstn@redhat.com \
--cc=cagney@gnu.org \
--cc=gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com \
--cc=mec.gnu@mindspring.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox