Re: [RFA] New testes for process record save/restore commands

[Hui Zhu <teawater at gmail dot com>]

Hi Michael,

This testsuite will get fail with "consecutive-precsave.exp
solib-precsave.exp until-precsave.exp".

I checked the consecutive-precsave.exp, this issue is because:
x /2i $pc
=> 0x8048377 <foo+3>:	mov    0x80495a4,%edx
   0x804837d <foo+9>:	mov    0x80495a8,%eax

This is the new feature of gdb from Paul.

Paul, could you add a switch for this "=>"?

Thanks,
Hui


On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 03:52, Michael Snyder <msnyder@vmware.com> wrote:
> Joel Brobecker wrote:
>>>
>>> 2009-10-19 ?Michael Snyder ?<msnyder@vmware.com>
>>>
>>> ? ? ? ?* gdb.reverse/break-precsave.exp: New test.
>>> ? ? ? ?* gdb.reverse/consecutive-precsave.exp: Ditto.
>>> ? ? ? ?* gdb.reverse/finish-precsave.exp: Ditto.
>>> ? ? ? ?* gdb.reverse/i386-precsave.exp: Ditto.
>>> ? ? ? ?* gdb.reverse/machinestate-precsave.exp: Ditto.
>>> ? ? ? ?* gdb.reverse/sigall-precsave.exp: Ditto.
>>> ? ? ? ?* gdb.reverse/solilb-precsave.exp: Ditto.
>>> ? ? ? ?* gdb.reverse/step-precsave.exp: Ditto.
>>> ? ? ? ?* gdb.reverse/until-precsave.exp: Ditto.
>>> ? ? ? ?* gdb.reverse/watch-precsave.exp: Ditto.
>>
>> I only quickly scanned the files, since they are essentially duplicates
>> of already-existing testcases. I didn't expect to find anything, but
>> I actually did notice a couple of things:
>>
>> ?- Use of send_gdb/gdb_expect which should be replaced by
>> gdb_test_multiple
>> ? ?(too bad we didn't catch those in the current ones when the testcases
>> ? ?were checked in)
>> ?- unnecessary "return 0" at the end of the script.
>>
>> I think we shouldn't put anything unnecessary in these files, as we tend
>> to forget why we put them, and the next developer who, like me, writes
>> testcase by copy/paste, will repeat the pattern because he's afraid of
>> breaking something otherwise.
>
> OK, committed with *some* of the gdb_expects removed.
> I'm not entirely sure how to remove some of them, and
> I've no objection to anyone else banging on them. ?;-)
>
>
>