[patch] Re: "optimized out" on gdb.base/gdb1090.exp

[patch] Re: "optimized out" on gdb.base/gdb1090.exp

[Edjunior Barbosa Machado]

Thanks Jan for reviewing this. This is the updated patch with the suggested modifications.

Checking out the original PR 1090 that originated this testcase, it doesn't mention any particularity regarding frame or backtrace, which leads me to believe that changing where 'print' is called should not affect the main focus of the testcase.

Thanks,
-- 
Edjunior

2011-04-12  Edjunior Machado  <emachado@br.ibm.com>

	* testsuite/gdb.base/gdb1090.exp: change breakpoint location to	read the
	content of 's24' correctly (avoiding "optimized out").
	* testsuite/gdb.base/gdb1090.c: add comment in order to set breakpoint.

diff --git a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/gdb1090.c b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/gdb1090.c
index 22f2cec..8933952 100644
--- a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/gdb1090.c
+++ b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/gdb1090.c
@@ -36,7 +36,7 @@ void foo ()
    register struct s_2_by_4 s24;
    s24.field_0 = 1170;
    s24.field_1 = 64701;
-  marker (s24);
+  marker (s24); /* break-here */
    return;
  }
  
diff --git a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/gdb1090.exp b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/gdb1090.exp
index a15fd04..ab568ab 100644
--- a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/gdb1090.exp
+++ b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/gdb1090.exp
@@ -40,11 +40,13 @@ gdb_start
  gdb_reinitialize_dir $srcdir/$subdir
  gdb_load ${binfile}
  
-if ![runto marker] then {
-    perror "couldn't run to breakpoint"
-    continue
-}
-gdb_test "up" ".*foo.*" "up from marker"
+if ![runto_main] then {
+    fail "Can't run to main"
+    return 1
+}
+
+gdb_breakpoint [gdb_get_line_number "break-here"]
+gdb_continue_to_breakpoint "break-here" ".* break-here .*"
  
  gdb_test_multiple "print s24" "print s24" {
      -re "\\\$\[0-9\]* = \\{field_0 = 1170, field_1 = 64701\\}\r\n$gdb_prompt $" {

Re: [patch] Re: "optimized out" on gdb.base/gdb1090.exp

[Yao Qi]

On 04/13/2011 05:21 AM, Edjunior Barbosa Machado wrote:
> 
> 2011-04-12  Edjunior Machado  <emachado@br.ibm.com>
> 
>     * testsuite/gdb.base/gdb1090.exp: change breakpoint location to   
> read the

Please remove spurious spaces between "to" and "read".

>     content of 's24' correctly (avoiding "optimized out").
>     * testsuite/gdb.base/gdb1090.c: add comment in order to set breakpoint.
        ^^^^^^^^^  Delete "testsuite/", since this changelog entry will
go to gdb/testsuite/ChangLog.

-- 
Yao (齐尧)

Re: [patch] Re: "optimized out" on gdb.base/gdb1090.exp

[Jan Kratochvil]

On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 23:21:48 +0200, Edjunior Barbosa Machado wrote:
> Checking out the original PR 1090 that originated this testcase, it doesn't
> mention any particularity regarding frame or backtrace, which leads me to
> believe that changing where 'print' is called should not affect the main
> focus of the testcase.

PR 1090 should have been about "allocate a variable into multiple registers"
which is still being tested so the testcase should be OK even this way.
 <2><8d>: Abbrev Number: 8 (DW_TAG_variable)
    <8e>   DW_AT_name        : s24
[...]
    <98>   DW_AT_location    : 6 byte block: 53 93 4 56 93 4    (DW_OP_reg3 (ebx); DW_OP_piece: 4; DW_OP_reg6 (esi); DW_OP_piece: 4)


On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 03:26:11 +0200, Yao Qi wrote:
> On 04/13/2011 05:21 AM, Edjunior Barbosa Machado wrote:
> > 
> > 2011-04-12  Edjunior Machado  <emachado@br.ibm.com>
> > 
> >     * testsuite/gdb.base/gdb1090.exp: change breakpoint location to   
> > read the
> 
> Please remove spurious spaces between "to" and "read".
> 
> >     content of 's24' correctly (avoiding "optimized out").
> >     * testsuite/gdb.base/gdb1090.c: add comment in order to set breakpoint.
>         ^^^^^^^^^  Delete "testsuite/", since this changelog entry will
> go to gdb/testsuite/ChangLog.

And the first letter of the sentence should be capital.
	http://www.gnu.org/prep/standards/html_node/Style-of-Change-Logs.html#Style-of-Change-Logs

Please check it in with those changes.


Thanks,
Jan

Re: [patch] Re: "optimized out" on gdb.base/gdb1090.exp

[Edjunior Barbosa Machado]

On 04/13/2011 08:15 AM, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 23:21:48 +0200, Edjunior Barbosa Machado wrote:
>> Checking out the original PR 1090 that originated this testcase, it doesn't
>> mention any particularity regarding frame or backtrace, which leads me to
>> believe that changing where 'print' is called should not affect the main
>> focus of the testcase.
>
> PR 1090 should have been about "allocate a variable into multiple registers"
> which is still being tested so the testcase should be OK even this way.
>   <2><8d>: Abbrev Number: 8 (DW_TAG_variable)
>      <8e>    DW_AT_name        : s24
> [...]
>      <98>    DW_AT_location    : 6 byte block: 53 93 4 56 93 4    (DW_OP_reg3 (ebx); DW_OP_piece: 4; DW_OP_reg6 (esi); DW_OP_piece: 4)
>
>
> On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 03:26:11 +0200, Yao Qi wrote:
>> On 04/13/2011 05:21 AM, Edjunior Barbosa Machado wrote:
>>>
>>> 2011-04-12  Edjunior Machado<emachado@br.ibm.com>
>>>
>>>      * testsuite/gdb.base/gdb1090.exp: change breakpoint location to
>>> read the
>>
>> Please remove spurious spaces between "to" and "read".
>>
>>>      content of 's24' correctly (avoiding "optimized out").
>>>      * testsuite/gdb.base/gdb1090.c: add comment in order to set breakpoint.
>>          ^^^^^^^^^  Delete "testsuite/", since this changelog entry will
>> go to gdb/testsuite/ChangLog.
>
> And the first letter of the sentence should be capital.
> 	http://www.gnu.org/prep/standards/html_node/Style-of-Change-Logs.html#Style-of-Change-Logs
>
> Please check it in with those changes.
>
>
> Thanks,
> Jan
>

Thanks Jan and Yao Qi for the feedback. Checked in with the mentioned changes:
	http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-cvs/2011-04/msg00083.html

-- 
Edjunior