From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-66304-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 30647 invoked by alias); 28 Aug 2009 01:35:02 -0000
Received: (qmail 30635 invoked by uid 22791); 28 Aug 2009 01:35:01 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 	tests=AWL,BAYES_00
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from smtp-outbound-1.vmware.com (HELO smtp-outbound-1.vmware.com) (65.115.85.69)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 28 Aug 2009 01:34:53 +0000
Received: from mailhost2.vmware.com (mailhost2.vmware.com [10.16.67.167]) 	by smtp-outbound-1.vmware.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CFA6C43001; 	Thu, 27 Aug 2009 18:34:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.20.94.141] (msnyder-server.eng.vmware.com [10.20.94.141]) 	by mailhost2.vmware.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF6AB8E5BE; 	Thu, 27 Aug 2009 18:34:48 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4A97345F.1010508@vmware.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2009 01:44:00 -0000
From: Michael Snyder <msnyder@vmware.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.12 (X11/20080411)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Hui Zhu <teawater@gmail.com>
CC: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>,   "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" <gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
Subject: Re: Bug in i386_process_record?
References: <4A7BA1DE.6010103@vmware.com> <daef60380908231642h1d85f7b5r70a5856647335f4c@mail.gmail.com> 	<daef60380908231700i47c2b1e7kae31369237b419b4@mail.gmail.com> 	<83eir1dnqw.fsf@gnu.org> <daef60380908242202y4102ac49xec519769d7e1f3c@mail.gmail.com> 	<8363cbenvt.fsf@gnu.org> <daef60380908251958u31f379e2oe5839c3a9e826428@mail.gmail.com> 	<4A95C927.8020607@vmware.com> <4A95D342.6070304@vmware.com> 	<daef60380908261843j288d7364u2ffc2d7209bfaa8e@mail.gmail.com> <daef60380908270648h5969da6erd9dba6a524889be1@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <daef60380908270648h5969da6erd9dba6a524889be1@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb-patches.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2009-08/txt/msg00503.txt.bz2

Hui Zhu wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 09:43, Hui Zhu<teawater@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 08:28, Michael Snyder<msnyder@vmware.com> wrote:
>>> Do you think you could add some new tests to i386-reverse.exp,
>>> to verify the string instructions?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Michael
>>>
>> OK. I will do it.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Hui
>>
> 
> Hi Michael,
> 
> I make a patch to add the test for string insn.
> 
> Please help me review it.

Good start -- but you need to write some expect script to go with it!
;-)


> 2009-08-27  Hui Zhu  <teawater@gmail.com>
> 
> 	* gdb.reverse/i386-reverse.c (string_insn_tests): New function.
> 	(main): Call "string_insn_tests".
> 
> ---
>  testsuite/gdb.reverse/i386-reverse.c |   16 ++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 16 insertions(+)
> 
> --- a/testsuite/gdb.reverse/i386-reverse.c
> +++ b/testsuite/gdb.reverse/i386-reverse.c
> @@ -38,9 +38,25 @@ inc_dec_tests (void)
>    asm ("dec %edi");
>  } /* end inc_dec_tests */
> 
> +void
> +string_insn_tests (void)
> +{
> +  register char x asm("ax");
> +  char *dstp = (char *) 1;
> +  int d0;
> +  int len = 0;
> +
> +  asm volatile("rep\n"
> +	       "stosb" /* %0, %2, %3 */ :
> +	       "=D" (dstp), "=c" (d0) :
> +	       "0" (dstp), "1" (len), "a" (x) :
> +	       "memory");
> +}
> +
>  int
>  main ()
>  {
>    inc_dec_tests ();
> +  string_insn_tests ();
>    return 0;	/* end of main */
>  }