From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5327 invoked by alias); 4 Oct 2016 16:39:50 -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 5311 invoked by uid 89); 4 Oct 2016 16:39:50 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-3.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=among X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Tue, 04 Oct 2016 16:39:49 +0000 Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E3D9076A10; Tue, 4 Oct 2016 16:39:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from host1.jankratochvil.net (ovpn-116-55.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.55]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id u94GdifN006757 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 4 Oct 2016 12:39:47 -0400 Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2016 16:39:00 -0000 From: Jan Kratochvil To: Yao Qi Cc: "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" Subject: Re: [testsuite patch] Fix recent GCC FAIL: gdb.arch/i386-signal.exp Message-ID: <20161004163944.GA8002@host1.jankratochvil.net> References: <20161003203500.GA2251@host1.jankratochvil.net> <20161004161900.GA6231@host1.jankratochvil.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20161004161900.GA6231@host1.jankratochvil.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.7.0 (2016-08-17) X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2016-10/txt/msg00048.txt.bz2 On Tue, 04 Oct 2016 18:19:00 +0200, Jan Kratochvil wrote: > On Tue, 04 Oct 2016 18:07:56 +0200, Yao Qi wrote: > > > The .c patch will properly create a new corresponding source line .debug_line > > > entry for the 'mov $0x0,%eax' instruction and I also do not think it is > > > relevant to the purpose of this testfile. > > > > Why do we need the second one? > > I find it more cleaner but that is up to you. To make that my reason more explanatory - given the testcase expected output is affected by that missing "return 0;" and its .debug_line record I find it more clear for this testcase to put there the source line "return 0;" explicitly than to depend on such implicit line by compiler as then the debug info is unclear for that line - even among different compilers. Jan