This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [RFA] [PATCH] gdb.base/break.exp
- To: Michael Elizabeth Chastain <chastain at cygnus dot com>
- Subject: Re: [RFA] [PATCH] gdb.base/break.exp
- From: Michael Snyder <msnyder at redhat dot com>
- Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 09:30:20 -0800
- CC: gdb-patches at sourceware dot cygnus dot com
- References: <200011280556.VAA08013@train2.cygnus.com>
Michael Elizabeth Chastain wrote:
>
> Here is version #2 of a break.exp patch.
>
> This patch fixes these test failures on i686-pc-linux-gnu (native):
>
> FAIL: gdb.base/break.exp: break main #1
> FAIL: gdb.base/break.exp: break main #2
> FAIL: gdb.base/break.exp: clear main
>
> In this version, I use "marker3" rather than "factorial". Marker
> functions are more in line with gdb testsuite conventions. Per my
> previous analysis, the name "main" is not suitable because "main" is
> the name of a function parameter (!) at the point where this test is run.
>
> I did not add a new "marker5" because break.exp has many absolute line
> numbers in it and I do not care to risk adjusting them all.
That's good -- but I'm not sure why "marker3" is any better
than "factorial". In fact, in keeping with someone's remark
(kevinb?), factorial seems preferable, since libc startup
code is unlikely to have a "factorial" symbol, while it
certainly might have a "marker3" symbol.
>
> Michael Elizabeth Chastain
> <chastain@redhat.com>
> "love without fear"
>
> ===
>
> 2000-11-27 Michael Chastain <chastain@redhat.com>
>
> * break.exp (test_clear_command): use a different function
> than 'main' for the test function. On glibc based systems,
> __libc_start_main is the current function at this point in
> execution, and __libc_start_main has a parameter named 'main'.
>
> Index: gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/break.exp
> ===================================================================
> RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/break.exp,v
> retrieving revision 1.6
> diff -c -3 -p -r1.6 break.exp
> *** gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/break.exp 2000/11/17 16:24:48 1.6
> --- gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/break.exp 2000/11/28 05:40:16
> *************** if [istarget "hppa*-*-hpux*"] then {
> *** 707,718 ****
>
>
> proc test_clear_command {} {
> ! gdb_test "break main" "Breakpoint.*at.*" "break main #1"
> ! gdb_test "break main" "Breakpoint.*at.*" "break main #2"
>
> # We don't test that it deletes the correct breakpoints. We do at
> # least test that it deletes more than one breakpoint.
> ! gdb_test "clear main" {Deleted breakpoints [0-9]+ [0-9]+.*}
> }
>
> #
> --- 707,718 ----
>
>
> proc test_clear_command {} {
> ! gdb_test "break marker3" "Breakpoint.*at.*" "break marker3 #1"
> ! gdb_test "break marker3" "Breakpoint.*at.*" "break marker3 #2"
>
> # We don't test that it deletes the correct breakpoints. We do at
> # least test that it deletes more than one breakpoint.
> ! gdb_test "clear marker3" {Deleted breakpoints [0-9]+ [0-9]+.*}
> }
>
> #