This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: Testsuite failures in gdb.base/callfuncs.exp
- From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at false dot org>
- To: Andreas Schwab <schwab at suse dot de>
- Cc: Mark Kettenis <mark dot kettenis at xs4all dot nl>, gdb-patches at sourceware dot org
- Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 12:03:09 -0500
- Subject: Re: Testsuite failures in gdb.base/callfuncs.exp
- References: <jebqkf9y09.fsf@sykes.suse.de> <20070131124926.GA18380@nevyn.them.org> <je3b5r9u67.fsf@sykes.suse.de> <20070131141530.GA22362@nevyn.them.org> <jey7nj8csm.fsf@sykes.suse.de> <20070131151001.GA25714@nevyn.them.org> <200702012253.l11MrYDH006566@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <je4pq58njs.fsf@sykes.suse.de>
On Fri, Feb 02, 2007 at 12:29:11AM +0100, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> Mark Kettenis <mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl> writes:
>
> > No I think there actually is a problem. Either the bspstore matters
> > or it doesn't. If it doesn't, GDB should just not include it in the
> > list of registers it displays. If it does matter, the test is showing
> > a genuine bug.
>
> I don't think a register should be left out just because it is read-only.
> It is still part of the processor state and can present information that
> may be needed for debugging.
Then can we avoid corrupting it, e.g. by adjusting both registers in a
way that lets us write arbitrary values to it?
I'm going to let you and Mark sort this out; I don't have a strong
opinion.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery