Re: Bug in i386_process_record?

[Michael Snyder <msnyder@vmware.com>]

Hui Zhu wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 09:35, Michael Snyder<msnyder@vmware.com> wrote:
>> 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!
>> ;-)
> 
> Hi Michael,
> 
> This patch can make inferior without string_insn_patch get fail in:
> gdb_test "continue" \
>     " end of main .*" \
>     "continue to end of main"
> Prec will get error in asm volatile("rep\n" line when continue.
> 
> Do you think I need make string_insn test  divide with inc_test in
> expect script?

My intention when I wrote the i386-reverse test was
that it should be extended with more tests over time.

In fact, I had this one in mind.   ;-)

Don't worry about "without string_insn_patch", since you will
check it in tomorrow.  You will check in this test later than
that, so nobody will get this test unles they already have the
string_insn_patch.