Re: [RFC 2/2] Test entry values in trace frame

[Yao Qi <yao@codesourcery.com>]

On 08/21/2013 01:48 AM, Tom Tromey wrote:
> I think on the whole I'd rather we not check in a test that fails.
> 
> I know we already have tests like that, but what I've noticed is that
> these tests only ever seem to be fixed as a side effect of fixing
> something else.  Otherwise the failures are just universally ignored.
> 
> I suppose the best thing to do is to file a bug about this problem.
> Then you can attach this patch to the bug.
> 
> What do you think?

I agree.  I opened PR15871 http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15871

On the other hand, I kfail the test.

-- 
Yao (齐尧)

gdb/testsuite:

2013-08-21  Yao Qi  <yao@codesourcery.com>

	* gdb.trace/entry-values.c (end): New
	(main): Call end.
	* gdb.trace/entry-values.exp: Load trace-support.exp.  Set
	tracepoint and collect data.  Test entry value is unavailable.
---
 gdb/testsuite/gdb.trace/entry-values.c   |    5 +++
 gdb/testsuite/gdb.trace/entry-values.exp |   48 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 2 files changed, 53 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)

diff --git a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.trace/entry-values.c b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.trace/entry-values.c
index 3f98615..e287203 100644
--- a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.trace/entry-values.c
+++ b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.trace/entry-values.c
@@ -32,6 +32,10 @@ bar (int i)
 int global1 = 1;
 int global2 = 2;
 
+static void
+end (void)
+{}
+
 int
 main (void)
 {
@@ -41,5 +45,6 @@ main (void)
   global2++;
   ret = bar (0);
 
+  end ();
   return ret;
 }
diff --git a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.trace/entry-values.exp b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.trace/entry-values.exp
index 30db4a6..cf2cb6f 100644
--- a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.trace/entry-values.exp
+++ b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.trace/entry-values.exp
@@ -230,3 +230,51 @@ gdb_test_sequence "bt" "bt (2)" {
     "\[\r\n\]#1 .* bar \\(i=<optimized out>, i@entry=<optimized out>\\)"
     "\[\r\n\]#2 .* main \\(\\)"
 }
+
+# Restart GDB and trace.
+
+clean_restart $binfile
+
+load_lib "trace-support.exp"
+
+if ![runto_main] {
+    fail "Can't run to main to check for trace support"
+    return -1
+}
+
+if ![gdb_target_supports_trace] {
+    unsupported "target does not support trace"
+    return -1
+}
+
+gdb_test "trace foo" "Tracepoint $decimal at .*"
+
+if [is_amd64_regs_target] {
+    set spreg "\$rsp"
+} elseif [is_x86_like_target] {
+    set spreg "\$esp"
+} else {
+    set spreg "\$sp"
+}
+
+# Collect arguments i and j.  Collect 'global1' which is entry value
+# of argument i.  Don't collect 'global2' to test the entry value of
+# argument j.
+
+gdb_trace_setactions "set action for tracepoint 1" "" \
+    "collect i, j, global1, \(\*\(void \*\*\) \($spreg\)\) @ 64" "^$"
+
+gdb_test_no_output "tstart"
+
+gdb_breakpoint "end"
+gdb_continue_to_breakpoint "end"
+
+gdb_test_no_output "tstop"
+
+gdb_test "tfind" "Found trace frame 0, .*" "tfind start"
+
+# Since 'global2' is not collected, j@entry is expected to be 'unavailable'.
+setup_kfail "gdb/15871" *-*-*
+gdb_test "bt 1" "#0 .* foo \\(i=\[-\]?$decimal, i@entry=2, j=\[-\]?$decimal, j@entry=<unavailable>\\).*"
+
+gdb_test "tfind" "Target failed to find requested trace frame\..*"
-- 
1.7.7.6