From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-66308-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 4218 invoked by alias); 28 Aug 2009 03:05:40 -0000
Received: (qmail 4210 invoked by uid 22791); 28 Aug 2009 03:05:40 -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 03:05:34 +0000
Received: from mailhost3.vmware.com (mailhost3.vmware.com [10.16.27.45]) 	by smtp-outbound-1.vmware.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B170853006; 	Thu, 27 Aug 2009 20:05:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.20.94.141] (msnyder-server.eng.vmware.com [10.20.94.141]) 	by mailhost3.vmware.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A68ADCD90E; 	Thu, 27 Aug 2009 20:05:32 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4A9749A2.3010500@vmware.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2009 06:16:00 -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> <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> 	<4A97345F.1010508@vmware.com> <daef60380908271856v7a9f2c4at510f351a622c636b@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <daef60380908271856v7a9f2c4at510f351a622c636b@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/msg00507.txt.bz2

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.