On 09/04/2011 09:54 PM, Yao Qi wrote: > Regression tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu with displaced stepping > "auto" and "on" respectively. No extra failures, but there are two > PASSes changed to KFAILs, > > -PASS: gdb.cp/annota2.exp: watch triggered on a.x > +KFAIL: gdb.cp/annota2.exp: watch triggered on a.x (PRMS: gdb/38) > -PASS: gdb.cp/annota3.exp: watch triggered on a.x > +KFAIL: gdb.cp/annota3.exp: watch triggered on a.x (PRMS: gdb/38) > > I am not familiar with this case, so can't tell this is caused by my patch. > I made a mistake when comparing gdb.sum, and I run testsuite again this morning, and get something different on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, - When displaced stepping is set to "auto", no regression. - When displaced stepping is set to "on", there are some new fails, * FAIL: gdb.base/ending-run.exp: step to end of run The test case doesn't match the output, while the output is correct. * FAIL: gdb.base/gdb1555.exp: Step into shared lib function FAIL: gdb.base/gdb1555.exp: Next while in a shared lib function FAIL: gdb.base/gnu-ifunc.exp: step FAIL: gdb.base/gnu-ifunc.exp: continue to break-at-nextcall FAIL: gdb.base/gnu-ifunc.exp: continue to breakpoint: nextcall gnu_ifunc FAIL: gdb.base/gnu-ifunc.exp: nextcall gnu_ifunc skipped These fails are caused by SIGSEGV in gdb, which shows some potential bugs in x86 displaced stepping. * FAIL: gdb.base/watch-vfork.exp: Watchpoint triggers after vfork (sw) FAIL: gdb.threads/pending-step.exp: next in multiple threads with breakpoints (timeout) They are similar to the problems (#4 and #5) I found on arm (posted http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2011-08/msg00609.html), and I'll post other patches to fix them. > -&& (tp->control.trap_expected > - || (step&& gdbarch_software_single_step_p (gdbarch))) > +&& (tp->control.trap_expected || step)) There is an extra ")" added by mistake when I am adding changelog entry for this patch. Here is the right one. -- Yao (齐尧)