This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [patch] New testcase for PR:1291
- From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at mvista dot com>
- To: Kris Warkentin <kewarken at qnx dot com>
- Cc: Elena Zannoni <ezannoni at redhat dot com>,Michael Elizabeth Chastain <mec at shout dot net>,gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 11:49:44 -0500
- Subject: Re: [patch] New testcase for PR:1291
- References: <16286.37627.229387.242404@localhost.redhat.com> <0c6901c39d71$d41d2150$0202040a@catdog>
On Tue, Oct 28, 2003 at 11:37:50AM -0500, Kris Warkentin wrote:
> You'll have to explain that to me a bit better. KFAIL? Does that mean I
> leave the test as is and mark it as an expected failure somehow? Or do I
> modify the test and make a note?
It's just like xfail. Grep for kfail in the testsuite for examples;
kfail takes as argument a PR number (file it in GNATS).
>
> cheers,
>
> Kris
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Elena Zannoni" <ezannoni@redhat.com>
> To: "Kris Warkentin" <kewarken@qnx.com>
> Cc: "Michael Elizabeth Chastain" <mec@shout.net>; <drow@mvista.com>;
> <gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 11:02 AM
> Subject: Re: [patch] New testcase for PR:1291
>
>
> > Kris Warkentin writes:
> > > > > A) move it and make it generic.
> > > > > B) leave it and write it in assembly.
> > > >
> > > > I like (B) better. The backtrace code is all about specific
> > > > assembly instructions. So I'd like it better in the style of the
> i386
> > > > prologue tests, with explicit assembly.
> > > >
> > > > Michael C
> > >
> > > Okay so this bit of assembly adequately demonstrates the problem.
> There is
> > > a bit of an issue here though that perhaps some sh4 expert can clear up
> for
> > > me. If I run this and go "until sub2", it stops on sub2 and works
> fine.
> > > If, however, I go "until sub1", followed by "until sub2", it stops a
> couple
> > > instructions before sub2 and I have to 'si' into it. I can modify the
> test
> > > case to not bother checking sub1 (since we know it's okay anyway) but
> I'm
> > > still puzzled as to why this is having the problem.
> > >
> > > cheers,
> > >
> > > Kris
> > >
> >
> > Ok. Not sure why that happens. It defeinitely seems like a bug. File
> > a pr, and KFAIL it in the testsuite, with the pr number.
> >
> > elena
> >
> >
> > >
> > > void sub1 (void);
> > > void sub2 (void);
> > >
> > > main()
> > > {
> > > sub1();
> > > sub2();
> > > }
> > >
> > > asm(".text\n"
> > > " .align 5\n"
> > > "sub1:\n"
> > > " mov.l r14,@-r15\n"
> > > " add #-128,r15\n"
> > > " add #-128,r15\n"
> > > " mov r15,r14\n"
> > > " mov.w .STACK1,r7\n"
> > > " add r7,r14\n"
> > > " mov r14,r15\n"
> > > " mov.l @r15+,r14\n"
> > > " rts\n"
> > > " nop\n"
> > > " .align 1\n"
> > > ".STACK1:\n"
> > > " .short 256\n");
> > >
> > > asm(".text\n"
> > > " .align 5\n"
> > > "sub2:\n"
> > > " mov.l r14,@-r15\n"
> > > " mov.w .STACK2,r3\n"
> > > " sub r3,r15\n"
> > > " mov r15,r14\n"
> > > " mov.w .STACK2,r7\n"
> > > " add r7,r14\n"
> > > " mov r14,r15\n"
> > > " mov.l @r15+,r14\n"
> > > " rts\n"
> > > " nop\n"
> > > " .align 1\n"
> > > ".STACK2:\n"
> > > " .short 260\n");
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer