From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11684 invoked by alias); 9 Aug 2006 23:40:12 -0000 Received: (qmail 11675 invoked by uid 22791); 9 Aug 2006 23:40:12 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from nile.gnat.com (HELO nile.gnat.com) (205.232.38.5) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Wed, 09 Aug 2006 23:40:10 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-nile.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5CF2C48CDEC for ; Wed, 9 Aug 2006 19:40:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from nile.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (nile.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 11144-01-6 for ; Wed, 9 Aug 2006 19:40:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from takamaka.act-europe.fr (unknown [70.71.0.212]) by nile.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D13C448CDCB for ; Wed, 9 Aug 2006 19:40:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: by takamaka.act-europe.fr (Postfix, from userid 507) id E0C2747EFA; Wed, 9 Aug 2006 16:40:06 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2006 23:40:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Problem with new step-bt test? Message-ID: <20060809234006.GU1385@adacore.com> References: <20060809220456.GA2781@nevyn.them.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060809220456.GA2781@nevyn.them.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-08/txt/msg00080.txt.bz2 > (gdb) PASS: gdb.base/step-bt.exp: step second instruction > bt > #0 hello () at /space/fsf/commit/src/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/step-bt.c:27 > #1 0x00000000004004d1 in main () at > /space/fsf/commit/src/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/step-bt.c:33 > (gdb) FAIL: gdb.base/step-bt.exp: backtrace after second instruction step > testcase /space/fsf/commit/src/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/step-bt.exp completed > in 2 seconds > > I figure that ought to be a PASS output, right? I think the problem is that > the two hex patterns need to be optional, but I haven't tried it. Yes, it should be only PASSes! It's strange because I definitely ran the testcase before checking in. Normally, the hex address is printed if we're "inside" a line of code, right? After a step or two, we should be still inside the prologue, so I figured we should see them printed. But I don't have any objection into making them optional. I can do that sometime later tonight. -- Joel