Re: [PATCH] testcases: Fix assorted problems related to powerpc

[Doug Evans <dje at google dot com>]

On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 8:47 PM, Jan Kratochvil
<jan.kratochvil@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Sep 2010 15:34:01 +0200, Luis Machado wrote:
>> Updated patch without the "fix" to watch-read.exp.
>
> Checked-in with the same \. -> \\. change as described in:
> ? ? ? ?Re: [PATCH] testsuite: break-entry.exp: convert entry point for ppc64
> ? ? ? ?http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2010-10/msg00057.html
>
> Tested on:
> ? ? ? ?{x86_64,x86_64-m32}-fedora14-linux-gnu
> ? ? ? ?{ppc64,ppc64-m32}-rhel6-linux-gnu
>
>
> Thanks,
> Jan
>
>
> http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-cvs/2010-11/msg00043.html
>
> --- src/gdb/testsuite/ChangeLog 2010/11/08 18:05:55 ? ? 1.2502
> +++ src/gdb/testsuite/ChangeLog 2010/11/09 04:44:16 ? ? 1.2503
> @@ -1,3 +1,13 @@
> +2010-11-09 ?Edjunior Machado ?<emachado@br.ibm.com>
> + ? ? ? ? ? Luis Machado ?<luisgpm@br.ibm.com>
> +
> + ? ? ? * gdb.base/maint.exp: Expect "." prefix.
> + ? ? ? * gdb.base/nodebug.exp: Expect "." Likewise.
> + ? ? ? * gdb.base/sepsymtab.exp: Expect "." Likewise.
> + ? ? ? * gdb.base/watchpoint-cond-gone.exp: Likewise.
> + ? ? ? * gdb.base/watchpoint.exp: Expect a software watch to be created for
> + ? ? ? POWER server processors.
> +
> ?2010-11-08 ?Edjunior Machado ?<emachado@br.ibm.com>
> ? ? ? ? ? ?Luis Machado ?<luisgpm@br.ibm.com>
>
> --- src/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/maint.exp ? ? ? ?2010/09/08 17:22:26 ? ? 1.48
> +++ src/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/maint.exp ? ? ? ?2010/11/09 04:44:17 ? ? 1.49
> @@ -253,7 +253,7 @@
> ? ? ? ? ? ?-re "msymbols_output\r\n$gdb_prompt $" {
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?send_gdb "shell grep factorial msymbols_output\n"
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?gdb_expect {
> - ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? -re "\\\[ *$decimal\\\] \[tT\]\[ \t\]+$hex factorial.*$gdb_prompt $" {
> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? -re "\\\[ *$decimal\\\] \[tT\]\[ \t\]+$hex \\.?factorial.*$gdb_prompt $" {
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?pass "maint print msymbols"
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?}
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?-re ".*$gdb_prompt $" ? ? { fail "maint print msymbols" }
> @@ -280,7 +280,7 @@
> ? ? ? ?gdb_test_multiple "shell ls msymbols_output2" "maint print msymbols" {
> ? ? ? ? ? ?-re "msymbols_output2\r\n$gdb_prompt $" {
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?gdb_test_multiple "shell grep factorial msymbols_output2" "maint print msymbols" {
> - ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? -re "\\\[ *$decimal\\\] \[tT\]\[ \t\]+$hex factorial.*$gdb_prompt $" {
> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? -re "\\\[ *$decimal\\\] \[tT\]\[ \t\]+$hex \\.?factorial.*$gdb_prompt $" {
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?pass "maint print msymbols"
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?}
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?-re ".*$gdb_prompt $" {
> --- src/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/nodebug.exp ? ? ?2010/05/25 19:34:04 ? ? 1.14
> +++ src/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/nodebug.exp ? ? ?2010/11/09 04:44:17 ? ? 1.15
> @@ -75,7 +75,7 @@
>
> ? ? if {![test_compiler_info "gcc-*"]} then { setup_xfail "mips-sgi-irix5*" "mips-sgi-irix6*" }
> ? ? gdb_test "p top" \
> - ? ? ? "\{(<(text variable|function), no debug info>|short \\(int\\)|short \\(\\))\} \[0-9a-fx]* <top(\\(int\\)|)>"
> + ? ? ? "\{(<(text variable|function), no debug info>|short \\(int\\)|short \\(\\))\} \[0-9a-fx]* <\\.?top(\\(int\\)|)>"
> ? ? if {![test_compiler_info "gcc-*"]} then { setup_xfail "mips-sgi-irix5*" "mips-sgi-irix6*" }
> ? ? gdb_test "whatis top" \
> ? ? ? ?"(<(text variable|function), no debug info>|short \\(int\\)|short \\(\\))"
> @@ -85,7 +85,7 @@
> ? ? if {![test_compiler_info "gcc-*"]} then { setup_xfail "mips-sgi-irix5*" }
> ? ? setup_xfail "mips-sgi-irix6*"
> ? ? gdb_test "p middle" \
> - ? ? ? "\{(<(text variable|function), no debug info>|short \\(int\\)|short \\(\\))\} \[0-9a-fx]* <middle(\\(int\\)|)>"
> + ? ? ? "\{(<(text variable|function), no debug info>|short \\(int\\)|short \\(\\))\} \[0-9a-fx]* <\\.?middle(\\(int\\)|)>"
> ? ? if {![test_compiler_info "gcc-*"]} then { setup_xfail "mips-sgi-irix5*" }
> ? ? setup_xfail "mips-sgi-irix6*"
> ? ? gdb_test "whatis middle" \
> --- src/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/sepsymtab.exp ? ?2010/01/01 07:32:01 ? ? 1.9
> +++ src/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/sepsymtab.exp ? ?2010/11/09 04:44:17 ? ? 1.10
> @@ -45,7 +45,7 @@
> ?set command "info sym main"
> ?set command_regex [string_to_regexp $command]
> ?gdb_test_multiple "$command" "$command" {
> - ? ?-re "^${command_regex}\[\r\n\]+main in section \[^\r\n\]+\[\r\n\]+$gdb_prompt \$" {
> + ? ?-re "^${command_regex}\[\r\n\]+\\.?main in section \[^\r\n\]+\[\r\n\]+$gdb_prompt \$" {
> ? ? ? ?pass "$command"
> ? ? }
> ?}
> --- src/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/watchpoint-cond-gone.exp 2010/06/01 21:29:21 ? ? 1.2
> +++ src/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/watchpoint-cond-gone.exp 2010/11/09 04:44:17 ? ? 1.3
> @@ -46,6 +46,7 @@
>
> ?# We may stay either in the function itself or only at the first instruction of
> ?# its caller depending on the epilogue unwinder (or valid epilogue CFI) presence.
> +
> ?gdb_test "finish" \
> - ? ? ? ?"Watchpoint .* deleted because the program has left the block in.*which its expression is valid..*in (jumper|func).*" \
> + ? ? ? ?"Watchpoint .* deleted because the program has left the block in.*which its expression is valid..*in (\\.?jumper|func).*" \
> ? ? ? ? "Catch the no longer valid watchpoint"
> --- src/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/watchpoint.exp ? 2010/09/04 15:30:09 ? ? 1.31
> +++ src/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/watchpoint.exp ? 2010/11/09 04:44:17 ? ? 1.32
> @@ -683,7 +683,13 @@
> ? ? ? ? ? ?"$watchpoint_msg \[0-9\]+: \\*\\(int \\*\\) 0"
> ? ? ? ?delete_breakpoints
>
> - ? ? ? gdb_test "watch *global_ptr" "$watchpoint_msg \[0-9\]+: \\*global_ptr"
> + ? ? ? # This step requires two HW watchpoints. ?Since PPC Server only has
> + ? ? ? # a single one, it will use a SW watchpoint in this case.
> + ? ? ? if [istarget powerpc64-*] {
> + ? ? ? ? ? set watchpoint_msg "Watchpoint"
> + ? ? ? }
> +
> + ? ? ? gdb_test "watch *global_ptr" "$watchpoint_msg \[0-9\]+: \\\*global_ptr"
> ? ? ? ?gdb_test "set \$global_ptr_breakpoint_number = \$bpnum" ""
> ? ? ? ?gdb_test "next" ".*global_ptr = buf.*" "global_ptr next"
> ? ? ? ?gdb_test_multiple "next" "next over ptr init" {

I wonder if it would be sufficiently useful to have comments there to
explain why the \\.? is present.
It could even be factored out to something like

set ppc_prefix "\\.?"

or a function call that prepended the prefix when necessary.

It feels like an obscure target-specific detail that is going to get
scattered throughout the testsuite.