This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [patch] Re: Advice on fixing gdb/12528
On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 19:49:47 +0100, Paul Pluzhnikov wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 11:36 AM, Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@redhat.com> wrote:
> >> Â Â Â ÂPR gdb/12528
> >> Â Â Â Â* gdb.dwarf2/break-on-linker-gcd-function.exp: New test.
> >> Â Â Â Â* gdb.dwarf2/break-on-linker-gcd-function.cc: New file.
> >
> > It seems correct to me, please check it in.
>
> Is location of the test case ok?
It is not - it is not the explicit DWARF code, it should be gdb.base/ as you
write, thanks.
> I also noticed that gdb.dwarf2/Makefile.in would need to have
> break-on-linker-gcd-function added to EXECUTABLES (or the executable
> renamed to break-on-linker-gcd-function.x).
It has been recently fixed by Michael Snyder so it should be maintained now.
EXECUTABLES should be updated, I agree.
> >> +# This accepts e.g. "Breakpoint 1 at 0x40968a" (fixed GDB)
> >> +# but rejects e.g. "Breakpoint 1 at 0x4" (broken GDB).
> >> +gdb_test "b [gdb_get_line_number "gdb break here"]" "Breakpoint \[0-9\] at 0x\[0-9a-f\]\[0-9a-f\]+: .*"
> >
> > I was thinking if some prologue cannot be >=0x10 due to some alignments etc.
>
> Perhaps "[$hex][$hex][$hex]+" to weed out up to 0xff ?
But some embedded targets can fit the whole program / main under 0x100?
I would keep it as is, there is only a risk of false PASS, not false FAIL.
And the real FAIL would be caught by x86*.
Thanks,
Jan