From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-21852-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 18033 invoked by alias); 15 Jan 2003 17:34:43 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sources.redhat.com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com
Received: (qmail 18022 invoked from network); 15 Jan 2003 17:34:41 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO jackfruit.Stanford.EDU) (171.64.38.136)
  by 209.249.29.67 with SMTP; 15 Jan 2003 17:34:41 -0000
Received: (from carlton@localhost)
	by jackfruit.Stanford.EDU (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0FHYM411920;
	Wed, 15 Jan 2003 09:34:22 -0800
X-Authentication-Warning: jackfruit.Stanford.EDU: carlton set sender to carlton@math.stanford.edu using -f
To: Fernando Nasser <fnasser@redhat.com>
Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: [rfa/testsuite] more selftest.exp tweaking
References: <ro1ptqza314.fsf@jackfruit.Stanford.EDU>
	<3E256E87.4010904@redhat.com>
From: David Carlton <carlton@math.stanford.edu>
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 17:34:00 -0000
In-Reply-To: <3E256E87.4010904@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <ro11y3e8ggx.fsf@jackfruit.Stanford.EDU>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.4 (Common Lisp)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-SW-Source: 2003-01/txt/msg00567.txt.bz2

On Wed, 15 Jan 2003 09:21:59 -0500, Fernando Nasser <fnasser@redhat.com> said:

> David, it is approved but please change the comment to state which
> compiler version you've seem this order.

Thanks, will do.

> P.S.: What I am hoping is that one day in the future we can get rid
> of some cases for very old compilers.  The comments will make it
> easier.  This is not a serious enough condition for adding an 'if'
> on the compiler version, me thinks...

No.  Unfortunately, I think that this particular problem will get
worse with future compilers, not better: instruction reordering by
compilers will only increase as optimizers get trickier.

Committed; patch is below.

David Carlton
carlton@math.stanford.edu

2003-01-15  David Carlton  <carlton@math.stanford.edu>

	* gdb.base/selftest.exp (do_steps_and_nexts): Allow gdb_sysroot.

Index: selftest.exp
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/selftest.exp,v
retrieving revision 1.6
diff -u -p -r1.6 selftest.exp
--- selftest.exp	23 Dec 2002 16:56:25 -0000	1.6
+++ selftest.exp	15 Jan 2003 17:32:33 -0000
@@ -170,6 +170,12 @@ proc do_steps_and_nexts {} {
 		set description "step over current_directory initialization"
 		set command "step"
 	    }
+	    -re ".*gdb_sysroot = .*$gdb_prompt $" {
+		# NOTE: carlton/2003-01-15: More optimization reordering,
+		# observed on GCC 3.1.
+		set description "step over gdb_sysroot initialization"
+		set command "step"
+	    }
 	    -re "\[ \t\]+\{\r\n$gdb_prompt $" {
 		setup_xfail "mips-*-irix5*"
 		fail "$description ended up at odd location"