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

Edjunior Barbosa Machado
2011-04-13T21:20:03Z

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