Re: [PATCH] Adjust `pc-fp.exp' for ppc64/s390x (PR 12659)

[Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com>]

On 08/01/2012 08:52 PM, Tom Tromey wrote:
>>>>>> "Pedro" == Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com> writes:
> 
>>> # Regression test for
>>> # http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12659
>>> gdb_test "info register pc fp" \
>>> -    "pc: ${valueof_pc}\[\r\n\]+fp: ${valueof_fp}\[\r\n\]+"
>>> + "pc(:)?.*${valueof_pc}(.*${hex} <.*>)?\[\r\n\]+fp:
>>> ${valueof_fp}\[\r\n\]+"
> 
> Pedro> Relaxing the output like that means that inadvertent changes to x86's
> Pedro> or ppc/s390x output might go unnoticed.  It's best to have
> 
> In this particular case, the check is really just to verify that the
> named register, and nothing else, appears at the start of the line.
> 
> Before 12659 was fixed, "info register pc fp" printed:
> 
> sp fp: blah blah
> fp: blah blah
> 
> The "fp" on the first line was the bogus bit.
> 
> I think the test would remain correct, with regards to what it was
> intended to check, if it even went as far as "pc: .*\[\r\n\]+fp: .*";
> checking the values is additional here.

Ah, in that case, I agree.

-- 
Pedro Alves