From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 33292 invoked by alias); 22 Mar 2018 13:44:55 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 32952 invoked by uid 89); 22 Mar 2018 13:44:54 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=Ie, principle X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx3-rdu2.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.73) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Thu, 22 Mar 2018 13:44:53 +0000 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx03.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 73077406E8C3; Thu, 22 Mar 2018 13:44:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn04.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.4]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BEEAC111CB9E; Thu, 22 Mar 2018 13:44:51 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] gdb: Fix testsuite issue in gdb.arch/amd64-disp-step-avx.exp To: Andrew Burgess , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <963bfa7c7483c4c907f4a63e9588b243845c8acd.1521722330.git.andrew.burgess@embecosm.com> From: Pedro Alves Message-ID: <0a12132f-5423-4319-02da-4c61d072f237@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2018 13:44:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <963bfa7c7483c4c907f4a63e9588b243845c8acd.1521722330.git.andrew.burgess@embecosm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2018-03/txt/msg00421.txt.bz2 Hi Andrew, Sounds fine to me in principle. A couple comments below. On 03/22/2018 12:57 PM, Andrew Burgess wrote: > @@ -103,8 +105,10 @@ proc disp_step_func { func } { > with_test_prefix "vex2" { > # This case writes to the 'xmm0' register. Confirm the register's > # value is what we believe it is before the AVX instruction runs. > - gdb_test "p /x \$xmm0.uint128" " = 0x0" \ > - "xmm0 has expected value before" > + for {set i 0 } { $i < 16 } { incr i } { > + gdb_test "p /x \$xmm${i}.uint128" " = 0x0" \ > + "xmm${i} has expected value before" > + } This leaves a slight disconnect between the comment and the code. I.e., someone reading the comment may wonder why we check more than xmm0? Also, should we test xmm1-15 are still 0 after, too, for completeness? > > disp_step_func "test_rip_vex2" > > Thanks, Pedro Alves