From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32268 invoked by alias); 1 Aug 2012 20:49:53 -0000 Received: (qmail 32260 invoked by uid 22791); 1 Aug 2012 20:49:52 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-7.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,KHOP_THREADED,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 20:49:32 +0000 Received: from int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.25]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q71KnVgK023871 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 16:49:31 -0400 Received: from psique (ovpn-113-52.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.113.52]) by int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q71KnS23028478; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 16:49:29 -0400 From: Sergio Durigan Junior To: Pedro Alves Cc: Tom Tromey , GDB Patches , Jan Kratochvil Subject: Re: [PATCH] Adjust `pc-fp.exp' for ppc64/s390x (PR 12659) References: <5018ECBE.4020007@redhat.com> <87vch2s83x.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <50199028.6060208@redhat.com> X-URL: http://www.redhat.com Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2012 20:49:00 -0000 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-IsSubscribed: yes 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 X-SW-Source: 2012-08/txt/msg00044.txt.bz2 On Wednesday, August 01 2012, Pedro Alves wrote: > On 08/01/2012 08:52 PM, Tom Tromey wrote: >>>>>>> "Pedro" == Pedro Alves 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. > > Ah, in that case, I agree. In this case the testcase would have to omit the `:' after the name of the register, since as we have seen the colon is not always present. I will open a bugzilla to register that we want to make the output of `info register' uniform accross all platforms. Is this patch OK then? -- Sergio 2012-08-01 Sergio Durigan Junior * gdb.base/pc-fp.exp: Adjust testcase to match a wider range of outputs. Index: src/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/pc-fp.exp =================================================================== --- src.orig/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/pc-fp.exp +++ src/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/pc-fp.exp @@ -66,4 +66,4 @@ gdb_test "info register \$fp" "${valueof # 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.*\[\r\n\]+fp.*\[\r\n\]+"