From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17914 invoked by alias); 29 Sep 2010 03:25:54 -0000 Received: (qmail 17901 invoked by uid 22791); 29 Sep 2010 03:25:52 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from e24smtp01.br.ibm.com (HELO e24smtp01.br.ibm.com) (32.104.18.85) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 29 Sep 2010 03:25:43 +0000 Received: from mailhub3.br.ibm.com (mailhub3.br.ibm.com [9.18.232.110]) by e24smtp01.br.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1) with ESMTP id o8T3bsAU024008 for ; Wed, 29 Sep 2010 00:37:54 -0300 Received: from d24av05.br.ibm.com (d24av05.br.ibm.com [9.18.232.44]) by mailhub3.br.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id o8T3VkLW2654454 for ; Wed, 29 Sep 2010 00:31:46 -0300 Received: from d24av05.br.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d24av05.br.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id o8T3PcS3012247 for ; Wed, 29 Sep 2010 00:25:39 -0300 Received: from [9.18.200.98] ([9.18.200.98]) by d24av05.br.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVin) with ESMTP id o8T3IVEZ002322 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 29 Sep 2010 00:18:31 -0300 Subject: Re: [PATCH] testcases: Fix assorted problems related to powerpc From: Luis Machado Reply-To: luisgpm@linux.vnet.ibm.com To: Pedro Alves Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-Reply-To: <201009281708.26790.pedro@codesourcery.com> References: <1285689421.12736.138.camel@gargoyle> <201009281708.26790.pedro@codesourcery.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 15:04:00 -0000 Message-ID: <1285730309.3709.0.camel@gargoyle> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes 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 X-SW-Source: 2010-09/txt/msg00484.txt.bz2 Thanks Pedro. That patch does fix the problem. I'll send an updated patch without fixes to watch-read.exp. Luis On Tue, 2010-09-28 at 17:08 +0100, Pedro Alves wrote: > On Tuesday 28 September 2010 16:57:01, Luis Machado wrote: > > gdb.base/watch-read.exp tries to create both a HW write watchpoint and a > > HW read watchpoint, but since POWER server processors only support a > > single HW watchpoint, this doesn't work right. It's strange, though, > > that GDB actually creates two HW watches for ppc, but the last one > > overrides the read/write flags of the previous one and thus we miss > > triggers. I've used an awatch instead, though i'd have to check if GDB > > is doing something wrong and if we could make this testcase pass without > > any changes. The results with AWATCH are pretty much the same as with > > RWATCH + WATCH. > > > > GDB is doing something wrong, and it's possible to make ppc pass this > testcase without any (test) changes. I think the patch below is what > I used to test on ppc when I wrote that test > (), and > the test passed with it. >