On 02/02/2016 10:09 AM, Walfred Tedeschi wrote:
Am 1/28/2016 um 2:42 PM schrieb Pedro Alves:
Pedro,
I have tried to address all your comments.
I quickly skimmed v6 (will have to look in more detail), but looks like
you missed the renaming comments. See them quoted below.
For the tests I also verified that there was only one line in the log as
shown in the wiki.
Thanks.
Have though some comments below:
# Function called when a segmentation fault with
# SIGCODE 3 (SIG_CODE_BOUNDARY_FAULT) is received by the inferior.
But, see below.
+
+static void
+handle_segmentation_faults (struct ui_out *uiout)
"handle_segmentation_fault", singular.
...
And then the gdbarch hook can be renamed to a more generic
gdbarch_handle_segmentation_fault.
...
The comments thoughout should be
updated then, like, for this function:
/* Some targets/architectures can do extra processing/display of
segmentation faults. E.g., Intel MPX boundary faults.
Call the architecture dependent function to handle the fault. */
static void
handle_segmentation_fault (struct ui_out *uiout)
{
(You did update the comment.)
+for {set i 0} {$i < 15} {incr i} {
+ set message "MPX signal segv Upper: ${i}"
+ gdb_test_multiple "continue" "$message ${i}" {
+ -re $segv_upper_bound {
+ pass "$message"
+ }
+ -re ".*$inferior_exited_re normally.*$gdb_prompt $" {
+ fail "$message"
The pass/fail calls are missing ${i}. Please make sure test
messages are unique in gdb.sum:
In fail and pass i think we do not need the ${i} it is added at the
message level already see:
set message "MPX signal segv Upper: ${i}"
In that case, you shouldn't have an "${i}" in this line:
+ gdb_test_multiple "continue" "$message ${i}" {
because then that expands to "... ${i} ${i}".
Thanks,
Pedro Alves