From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-93408-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 707 invoked by alias); 1 Aug 2012 19:52:38 -0000
Received: (qmail 699 invoked by uid 22791); 1 Aug 2012 19:52:37 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.5 required=5.0	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 01 Aug 2012 19:52:20 +0000
Received: from int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11])	by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q71JqJ4s010201	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK)	for <gdb-patches@sourceware.org>; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 15:52:19 -0400
Received: from barimba (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1])	by int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q71JqIoH028548	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO);	Wed, 1 Aug 2012 15:52:18 -0400
From: Tom Tromey <tromey@redhat.com>
To: Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com>
Cc: Sergio Durigan Junior <sergiodj@redhat.com>,        GDB Patches <gdb-patches@sourceware.org>,        Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Adjust `pc-fp.exp' for ppc64/s390x (PR 12659)
References: <m3mx2fmxmb.fsf@redhat.com> <5018ECBE.4020007@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2012 19:52:00 -0000
In-Reply-To: <5018ECBE.4020007@redhat.com> (Pedro Alves's message of "Wed, 01	Aug 2012 09:45:50 +0100")
Message-ID: <87vch2s83x.fsf@fleche.redhat.com>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.1 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
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
X-SW-Source: 2012-08/txt/msg00037.txt.bz2

>>>>> "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.

Tom