Re: [patch] callfuncs.exp: set unwindonsignal on

[Doug Evans <dje@google.com>]

On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 12:39 AM, Yao Qi <yao@codesourcery.com> wrote:
> On 09/15/2012 06:34 AM, dje@google.com wrote:
>>
>> Hi.
>>
>> Testing cvs head with i686 binaries and 64-bit gdb has this failure:
>> FAIL: gdb.base/callfuncs.exp: gdb function calls preserve register
>> contents
>> [I'm guessing the same failure will be seen with 32-bit native.]
>>
>
> This fail was introduced by my patch (sorry),
>
>   [_Complex test 4/4] _Complex tests in callfuncs.exp
>   http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2011-05/msg00421.html
>
> and it exists on 32-bit native.

No worries.

>>
>> Index: callfuncs.exp
>> ===================================================================
>> RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/callfuncs.exp,v
>> retrieving revision 1.52
>> diff -u -p -r1.52 callfuncs.exp
>> --- callfuncs.exp       9 Jul 2012 14:20:52 -0000       1.52
>> +++ callfuncs.exp       14 Sep 2012 22:29:09 -0000
>> @@ -65,6 +65,10 @@ proc do_function_calls {} {
>>       # We need to up this because this can be really slow on some boards.
>>       set timeout 60;
>>
>> +    # If any of these calls segv we don't want to affect subsequent
>> tests.
>> +    # E.g., we want to ensure register values are restored.
>> +    gdb_test_no_output "set unwindonsignal on"
>> +
>>       gdb_test "p t_char_values(0,0)" " = 0"
>>       gdb_test "p t_char_values('a','b')" " = 1"
>>       gdb_test "p t_char_values(char_val1,char_val2)" " = 1"
>> @@ -259,6 +263,9 @@ proc do_function_calls {} {
>>
>>       gdb_test "p t_structs_a(struct_val1)" "= (.unsigned char ..
>> )?<buf.*> \"foo\"" \
>>         "call inferior func with struct - returns char *"
>> +
>> +    # Restore default value.
>> +    gdb_test_no_output "set unwindonsignal off"
>
>
> The patch looks right to me.  Nitpicking, do we store the original value of
> 'unwindonsignal', and restore it here?  I am wondering people may run
> testsuite with 'unwindonsignal' on in default?

Thanks, committed.

Changing of settings only applies for the duration of each .exp file
as gdb is restarted for each one.
Here I think it's ok, at least for the test as is - if someone extends
the test and it starts to matter then saving/restoring can be
addressed then.  Plus I think the test is expecting the initial value
of unwindonsignal to be off - we could add more code to the test to
enforce that.