Re: Bug in i386_process_record?

[Hui Zhu <teawater@gmail.com>]

On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 09:35, Michael Snyder<msnyder@vmware.com> wrote:
> Hui Zhu wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 09:43, Hui Zhu<teawater@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 08:28, Michael Snyder<msnyder@vmware.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Do you think you could add some new tests to i386-reverse.exp,
>>>> to verify the string instructions?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Michael
>>>>
>>> OK. I will do it.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Hui
>>>
>>
>> Hi Michael,
>>
>> I make a patch to add the test for string insn.
>>
>> Please help me review it.
>
> Good start -- but you need to write some expect script to go with it!
> ;-)

Hi Michael,

This patch can make inferior without string_insn_patch get fail in:
gdb_test "continue" \
    " end of main .*" \
    "continue to end of main"
Prec will get error in asm volatile("rep\n" line when continue.

Do you think I need make string_insn test  divide with inc_test in
expect script?

Thanks,
Hui

>
>
>> 2009-08-27  Hui Zhu  <teawater@gmail.com>
>>
>>        * gdb.reverse/i386-reverse.c (string_insn_tests): New function.
>>        (main): Call "string_insn_tests".
>>
>> ---
>>  testsuite/gdb.reverse/i386-reverse.c |   16 ++++++++++++++++
>>  1 file changed, 16 insertions(+)
>>
>> --- a/testsuite/gdb.reverse/i386-reverse.c
>> +++ b/testsuite/gdb.reverse/i386-reverse.c
>> @@ -38,9 +38,25 @@ inc_dec_tests (void)
>>   asm ("dec %edi");
>>  } /* end inc_dec_tests */
>>
>> +void
>> +string_insn_tests (void)
>> +{
>> +  register char x asm("ax");
>> +  char *dstp = (char *) 1;
>> +  int d0;
>> +  int len = 0;
>> +
>> +  asm volatile("rep\n"
>> +              "stosb" /* %0, %2, %3 */ :
>> +              "=D" (dstp), "=c" (d0) :
>> +              "0" (dstp), "1" (len), "a" (x) :
>> +              "memory");
>> +}
>> +
>>  int
>>  main ()
>>  {
>>   inc_dec_tests ();
>> +  string_insn_tests ();
>>   return 0;    /* end of main */
>>  }
>
>