From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23516 invoked by alias); 3 May 2013 14:00:47 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 23506 invoked by uid 89); 3 May 2013 14:00:47 -0000 X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-9.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_WL,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.84/v0.84-167-ge50287c) with ESMTP; Fri, 03 May 2013 14:00:46 +0000 Received: from int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r43E0c9X028461 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 3 May 2013 10:00:38 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.11]) by int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r43E0bgh029016; Fri, 3 May 2013 10:00:37 -0400 Message-ID: <5183C304.7010002@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 03 May 2013 14:00:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130311 Thunderbird/17.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andreas Arnez CC: gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: gdb.arch vs. gdb.base gcore test cases References: <8761z0gvr7.fsf@br87z6lw.de.ibm.com> <51839F41.2050101@redhat.com> <87wqrgfble.fsf@br87z6lw.de.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <87wqrgfble.fsf@br87z6lw.de.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2013-05/txt/msg00019.txt.bz2 On 05/03/2013 02:15 PM, Andreas Arnez wrote: > Pedro Alves writes: > >> On 05/03/2013 12:15 PM, Andreas Arnez wrote: >>> The following two test cases are mostly identical, and their associated >>> C source files are exactly identical: >>> >>> gdb.arch/system-gcore.exp >>> gdb.base/gcore.exp >>> >>> Is there any specific reason for the two copies? Just curious... >> >> Well, what does git blame, and the initial submission of the >> corresponding patches say? The answer probably lies in what makes them >> "mostly identical" rather than "exactly identical" being arch >> specific. If the differences are really small, then we could merge >> them into gcore.exp, using istarget to guard the arch specific bits. ... > The x86-specific one is newer; it was introduced with this change: > > 2010-04-17 H.J. Lu > > PR corefiles/11511 > * gdb.arch/system-gcore.exp: New. > * gdb.arch/gcore.c: Likewise. > > The only functional difference seems to be that system-gcore.exp adds a > new comparison (before/after) for the output from "info reg system". Did you check the original patch submission description in the mailing list archives for a possible rationale? Given that "system" is a predefined register group, I think "info reg system" works on all targets, though it might come out empty if no register is actually in that group on a given target. That seems fine for this test. -- Pedro Alves