This is the mail archive of the gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com 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] |
Thanks for your comments. See below...
On Wednesday 22 September 2004 06:58, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> On powerpc64--linux, annota1.exp has two problems: > > 1) A breakpoint in a shared object may be 'delayed'. This changes GDB's > responce: both when the breakpoint is set and when it is hit.
I'm not sure what you mean. On i386 GNU/Linux, annota1.exp gets zero fails so this would suggest some sort of ISA specific bug?
The problem is specific to any ISA that uses delayed breakpoints... I think that's just the Power64.
I see this lets GDB accept the ``warning: adjusting breakpoint'' message. I'm wondering if GDB should even emit the warning - it and the descriptor are very much integral parts of the ABI - and hence should be trying to always display the descriptor symbol and code address (and not display the dot symbol).
I think I agree. Unless this level of detail is needed by the user for some reason. And I don't think they need to be reminded every time the breakpoint is hit. But that's the way the code is. The testsuite should reflect the way the code is, and to a certain extent, the way it was.
What's going to happen when 64-bit PPC stops emiting those dot symbols?
When this happens, then the regexp that I added would never be matched. So Its kind of self correcting.
> 2) Due to a bug (I which I knew the number), GDB 'skids' past the > top-of-stack when doing a backtrace. This causes two extra and severial > garbage stack frames to be displayed, eventually getting an error.
You mean backtracing past main - that code was recently rewritten. However, there's apparently no test case for the feature, perhaphs it it should first be added and fixed?. Anyway, I don't think we should be passing a broken backtrace.
Well... this doesn't 'pass' a broken backtrace, it just doesn't let a broken backtrace stop it from testing what it is really interested in: annotations.
I agree that we need a test for the 'backtracing past main' problem. I will post one later today, along with a log showing it in action. Which .exp file would you suggest I use as a model?
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |