From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10714 invoked by alias); 28 Jul 2014 14:26:57 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 10666 invoked by uid 89); 28 Jul 2014 14:26:54 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Mon, 28 Jul 2014 14:26:53 +0000 Received: from int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s6SEQoeE023094 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 28 Jul 2014 10:26:50 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.11]) by int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s6SEQmSl023140; Mon, 28 Jul 2014 10:26:49 -0400 Message-ID: <53D65DA8.1000005@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 14:49:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Yao Qi , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix PR 17206 References: <1406547056-22541-1-git-send-email-yao@codesourcery.com> <53D6441B.3050702@redhat.com> <53D6511E.3040404@codesourcery.com> In-Reply-To: <53D6511E.3040404@codesourcery.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2014-07/txt/msg00696.txt.bz2 On 07/28/2014 02:33 PM, Yao Qi wrote: > On 07/28/2014 08:37 PM, Pedro Alves wrote: >> This looks right, but, could we add a test to the test suite? > > Sure, how about the test below? Without the fix, I get the fail > > FAIL: gdb.base/until-range-step.exp: until 2 (GDB internal error) > > on x86-linux and arm-none-eabi. With the fix applied, the fail goes > away. I am not sure the test case name is good or clear enough. >From a high-level perspective, the issue triggered when you did "until" and PC pointed somewhere we had no debug info for, and there was no breakpoint at PC that needed to be stepped over. That is main use case and code path that we didn't have a test for. Note that although it happened to be a range-stepping-related assertion that triggered, the code was wrong even without range-stepping. E.g., if the instruction at PC is a conditional jmp to PC (like a spinlock), even without range-stepping, "until" should continue stepping until PC moves past the jump (that's the whole point of until), while it was stopping after one single-step, thus still pointing at the same PC. So I think "until-nodebug.exp" would be a good name for this test. > Maybe we can rename it to pr17206.exp or something else. We avoid such numeric names that make it harder to tell what's being exercised. The test itself looks good. Thanks! Pedro Alves