Re: [RFA 7/8] New port: TI C6x: test case fixes

[Yao Qi <yao@codesourcery.com>]

On 08/10/2011 10:04 PM, Yao Qi wrote:
>>> >> diff --git a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/savedregs.exp b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/savedregs.exp
>>> >> index eeee0ff..4408137 100644
>>> >> --- a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/savedregs.exp
>>> >> +++ b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/savedregs.exp
>>> >> @@ -84,6 +84,14 @@ proc process_saved_regs { current inner outer } {
>>> >>  		# Sigtramp frames don't yet print <signal trampoline>.
>>> >>  		set pat "Stack frame at .* Saved registers:.*"
>>> >>  	    }
>>> >> +	    thrower {
>>> >> +		if { [istarget tic6x-*-*] } {
>>> >> +		    # On tic6x, there is no register saved in function thrower.
>>> >> +		    set pat "Stack frame at .* in $func .*"
>>> >> +		} else {
>>> >> +		    set pat "Stack frame at .* in $func .* Saved registers:.*"
>>> >> +		}
>> > 
>> > Why are you special-casing tic6x here?  Is the architecture really
>> > that special that there are no saved registers?  I suspect it isn't
>> > and that this can happen on other architectures as well, depending on
>> > how much optimization the compiler is doing.
> Leave tic6x alone at first, it is the test case's problem here to expect
> "save registers in a frame", because it is possible there is no register
> saved on a certain frame.  IMO, tic6x port exposes such problem, and my
> fix in this patch is to make tests "more generally useful".  If we see
> "no registers saved" on other ports, we can put these targets together
> in this condition checking, like,
> 
> if { [istarget tic6x-*-*] || [istarget foo-*-*] || [istarget bar-*-*]} {
>     # On tic6x/foo/bar, there is no register saved in function thrower.
>     set pat "Stack frame at .* in $func .*"
> } else {
>     set pat "Stack frame at .* in $func .* Saved registers:.*"
> }
> 

The patch of test cases fix is checked in, except for this chunk.

http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-cvs/2011-08/msg00072.html

-- 
Yao (齐尧)