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] |
On Thursday 18 March 2010 09:38:22 Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 03:10:40AM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > FLAT toolchains output a FLAT binary for the named output and create > > another file with a .gdb suffix that is used for debugging. So when > > testing a FLAT toolchain and we need to load up a file, use the .gdb. > > FWIW, in our board files, we found it simpler to swap the two. So > we have a gdb_compile which generates an elf file as foo, and a flat > file as foo.flt. Nothing in the GDB testsuite except for the board > file itself needs to access the FLT file. hmm, that is one way of going about the issue, but personally i feel that this kind of logic should be in the test suite. imo, the dejagnu framework already puts too much demand on the end user to simply run `make check`. plus, since this isnt specific to an arch and FLAT isnt an uncommon target, doing it once in common code seems like it'd be easier for people to collaborate on. > That's not the only way to do it, we can accomodate both. But I'm not > thrilled with having binfmt_flat references scattered around random > tests. In lib/ maybe, but not everywhere that uses gdb_file_cmd... > > Or in the main definition of gdb_compile? i agree the current patch isnt terrible suave, but i'm not terribly familiar with the gdb testing framework. so i thought i'd post the patch to garner feedback on a better way and then attack the problem based on that. i'll give gdb_compile a try ... thanks ! -mike
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |