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]

Re: Bug in i386_process_record?


Hui Zhu wrote:
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 09:43, Hui Zhu<teawater@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 08:28, Michael Snyder<msnyder@vmware.com> wrote:
Do you think you could add some new tests to i386-reverse.exp,
to verify the string instructions?

Thanks,
Michael

OK. I will do it.

Thanks,
Hui


Hi Michael,


I make a patch to add the test for string insn.

Please help me review it.

Good start -- but you need to write some expect script to go with it! ;-)


2009-08-27 Hui Zhu <teawater@gmail.com>

	* gdb.reverse/i386-reverse.c (string_insn_tests): New function.
	(main): Call "string_insn_tests".

---
 testsuite/gdb.reverse/i386-reverse.c |   16 ++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+)

--- a/testsuite/gdb.reverse/i386-reverse.c
+++ b/testsuite/gdb.reverse/i386-reverse.c
@@ -38,9 +38,25 @@ inc_dec_tests (void)
   asm ("dec %edi");
 } /* end inc_dec_tests */

+void
+string_insn_tests (void)
+{
+  register char x asm("ax");
+  char *dstp = (char *) 1;
+  int d0;
+  int len = 0;
+
+  asm volatile("rep\n"
+	       "stosb" /* %0, %2, %3 */ :
+	       "=D" (dstp), "=c" (d0) :
+	       "0" (dstp), "1" (len), "a" (x) :
+	       "memory");
+}
+
 int
 main ()
 {
   inc_dec_tests ();
+  string_insn_tests ();
   return 0;	/* end of main */
 }


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]