This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [RFA 7/8] New port: TI C6x: test case fixes
On 08/10/2011 10:04 PM, Yao Qi wrote:
>>> >> diff --git a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/savedregs.exp b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/savedregs.exp
>>> >> index eeee0ff..4408137 100644
>>> >> --- a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/savedregs.exp
>>> >> +++ b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/savedregs.exp
>>> >> @@ -84,6 +84,14 @@ proc process_saved_regs { current inner outer } {
>>> >> # Sigtramp frames don't yet print <signal trampoline>.
>>> >> set pat "Stack frame at .* Saved registers:.*"
>>> >> }
>>> >> + thrower {
>>> >> + if { [istarget tic6x-*-*] } {
>>> >> + # On tic6x, there is no register saved in function thrower.
>>> >> + set pat "Stack frame at .* in $func .*"
>>> >> + } else {
>>> >> + set pat "Stack frame at .* in $func .* Saved registers:.*"
>>> >> + }
>> >
>> > Why are you special-casing tic6x here? Is the architecture really
>> > that special that there are no saved registers? I suspect it isn't
>> > and that this can happen on other architectures as well, depending on
>> > how much optimization the compiler is doing.
> Leave tic6x alone at first, it is the test case's problem here to expect
> "save registers in a frame", because it is possible there is no register
> saved on a certain frame. IMO, tic6x port exposes such problem, and my
> fix in this patch is to make tests "more generally useful". If we see
> "no registers saved" on other ports, we can put these targets together
> in this condition checking, like,
>
> if { [istarget tic6x-*-*] || [istarget foo-*-*] || [istarget bar-*-*]} {
> # On tic6x/foo/bar, there is no register saved in function thrower.
> set pat "Stack frame at .* in $func .*"
> } else {
> set pat "Stack frame at .* in $func .* Saved registers:.*"
> }
>
The patch of test cases fix is checked in, except for this chunk.
http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-cvs/2011-08/msg00072.html
--
Yao (éå)