From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31439 invoked by alias); 14 Aug 2011 16:24:09 -0000 Received: (qmail 31430 invoked by uid 22791); 14 Aug 2011 16:24:08 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (38.113.113.100) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sun, 14 Aug 2011 16:23:55 +0000 Received: (qmail 18273 invoked from network); 14 Aug 2011 16:23:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?192.168.0.101?) (yao@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 14 Aug 2011 16:23:54 -0000 Message-ID: <4E47F696.4040406@codesourcery.com> Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2011 16:24:00 -0000 From: Yao Qi User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.18) Gecko/20110617 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.11 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFA 7/8] New port: TI C6x: test case fixes References: <4E263904.8030204@codesourcery.com> <4E2D1AC1.9070102@codesourcery.com> <201108091522.12881.pedro@codesourcery.com> <4E414C49.9020507@codesourcery.com> <201108091515.p79FFoUs007220@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <4E415152.8020905@codesourcery.com> <201108101227.p7ACR31R013872@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <4E428FFE.9060109@codesourcery.com> In-Reply-To: <4E428FFE.9060109@codesourcery.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2011-08/txt/msg00290.txt.bz2 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 . >>> >> 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)