This is the mail archive of the gdb-patches@sourceware.org mailing list for the GDB project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: Bug in i386_process_record?


Hui Zhu wrote:
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 09:35, Michael Snyder<msnyder@vmware.com> wrote:
Hui Zhu wrote:
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 09:43, Hui Zhu<teawater@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 08:28, Michael Snyder<msnyder@vmware.com> wrote:
Do you think you could add some new tests to i386-reverse.exp,
to verify the string instructions?

Thanks,
Michael

OK. I will do it.

Thanks,
Hui

Hi Michael,

I make a patch to add the test for string insn.

Please help me review it.
Good start -- but you need to write some expect script to go with it!
;-)

Hi Michael,


This patch can make inferior without string_insn_patch get fail in:
gdb_test "continue" \
    " end of main .*" \
    "continue to end of main"
Prec will get error in asm volatile("rep\n" line when continue.

Do you think I need make string_insn test  divide with inc_test in
expect script?

My intention when I wrote the i386-reverse test was that it should be extended with more tests over time.

In fact, I had this one in mind. ;-)

Don't worry about "without string_insn_patch", since you will
check it in tomorrow.  You will check in this test later than
that, so nobody will get this test unles they already have the
string_insn_patch.



Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]