Re: [patch] circ.exp

Abid, Hafiz
2013-04-17T16:06:26Z

> > 4) Many tests were expecting current stack frame to be printed as
> result of
> > tfind command e.g. "#0 func9 .*". But this only happens when
> traceframe_number
> > is -1. In the following code, old_frame_id equal to current frame
> id unless
> > traceframe_number < 0.
> >
>
> I'm confused. Does the tfind in question switch to a different
> frame or not?
I have observed that location is only printed first time we give tfind
command (or give it after doing a tfind none).
If you see the example session below, you will see that 'tfind start'
prints the following line.
#0 func0 () at ../.././../git/gdb/testsuite/gdb.trace/circ.c:28

But next tfind does not print any such line. The test was assuming the
presence of this line every time. I am not sure what is expected
behavior is though.

(gdb) tstart
(gdb) info tracepoints
Num Type Disp Enb Address What
1 tracepoint keep y 0x080483b7 in func0
at
../.././../git/gdb/testsuite/gdb.trace/circ.c:28
collect testload
installed on target
2 tracepoint keep y 0x080483bc in func1
at
../.././../git/gdb/testsuite/gdb.trace/circ.c:32
collect testload
installed on target
(gdb) c
Continuing.

Breakpoint 3, end () at ../.././../git/gdb/testsuite/gdb.trace/circ.c:72
72 }
(gdb) tstop
(gdb) tfind start
Found trace frame 0, tracepoint 1
#0 func0 () at ../.././../git/gdb/testsuite/gdb.trace/circ.c:28
28 }
(gdb) tfind
Found trace frame 1, tracepoint 2
32 }
(gdb)

Regards,
Abid
From gdb-patches-return-100615-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org Wed Apr 17 16:39:02 2013
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-100615-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Delivered-To: listarch-gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Received: (qmail 24564 invoked by alias); 17 Apr 2013 16:39:02 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb-patches.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org
Delivered-To: mailing list gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Received: (qmail 24548 invoked by uid 89); 17 Apr 2013 16:39:01 -0000
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-7.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.84/v0.84-167-ge50287c) with ESMTP; Wed, 17 Apr 2013 16:39:01 +0000
Received: from int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r3HGcWaI026362 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits%6 verify=OK); Wed, 17 Apr 2013 12:38:32 -0400
Received: from [10.36.4.69] (vpn1-4-69.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.4.69]) by int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r3HGcUc8007034 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits%6 verify=NO); Wed, 17 Apr 2013 12:38:31 -0400
Message-ID: <516ECEC5.3010301@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 21:20:00 -0000
From: nick clifton <nickc@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:19.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/19.0 SeaMonkey/2.16.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Blanc, Nicolas" <nicolas.blanc@intel.com>
CC: "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" <gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
Subject: Re: Broken build: bfd.info does not compile.
References: <388084C8C1E6A64FA36AD1D656E4856619DEB4D2@IRSMSX102.ger.corp.intel.com> <516D6060.6040208@redhat.com> <388084C8C1E6A64FA36AD1D656E4856619DEC331@IRSMSX102.ger.corp.intel.com>
In-Reply-To: <388084C8C1E6A64FA36AD1D656E4856619DEC331@IRSMSX102.ger.corp.intel.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SW-Source: 2013-04/txt/msg00541.txt.bz2
Content-length: 696

Hi Nicolas,

> Actually, I have two bfdt.texi files: one in my build tree and one in
> my source tree.

Hmm, the one in your build tree is correct - it contains the missing nodes.

> Does this ring a bell with you?

Not really. But ... maybe it is the presence of the out-of-date version
of bfdt.texi in the GDB sources that is the cause of the problem... If
you copy ~/build/gdb-7.6/bfd/doc/bfdt.texi over ~/gdb/bfd/doc/bfdt.texi
and then rerun your build, does that solve the problem ?

If so then the answer is that the gdb-7.6 sources that you are using
contain some auto-generated files (including bfdt.texi) that are
potentially out of date with respect to the sources.

Cheers
Nick