Re: [PATCH v3] gdb: add 'maintenance print record-instruction' command

[Lancelot SIX <lsix@lancelotsix.com>]

Hi Bruno

> diff --git a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.reverse/maint-print-instruction.c b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.reverse/maint-print-instruction.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 00000000000..f06ed530620
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.reverse/maint-print-instruction.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,25 @@
> +/* This testcase is part of GDB, the GNU debugger.
> +
> +   Copyright 2022 Free Software Foundation, Inc.

Just mentioning so you do not forget, this will need to change to
2022-2023 before this gets pushed.

> +
> +   This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
> +   it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
> +   the Free Software Foundation; either version 3 of the License, or
> +   (at your option) any later version.
> +
> +   This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
> +   but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
> +   MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the
> +   GNU General Public License for more details.
> +
> +   You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
> +   along with this program.  If not, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.  */
> +
> +int
> +main ()
> +{
> +  int x = 0;
> +  x ++;
> +  x --;
> +  return x;
> +}
> diff --git a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.reverse/maint-print-instruction.exp b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.reverse/maint-print-instruction.exp
> new file mode 100644
> index 00000000000..b78b696add6
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.reverse/maint-print-instruction.exp
> @@ -0,0 +1,66 @@
> +#   Copyright 2008-2022 Free Software Foundation, Inc.

Should be 2022-2023.

> +
> +# This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
> +# it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
> +# the Free Software Foundation; either version 3 of the License, or
> +# (at your option) any later version.
> +#
> +# This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
> +# but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
> +# MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the
> +# GNU General Public License for more details.
> +#
> +# You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
> +# along with this program.  If not, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.
> +
> +# This file is part of the GDB testsuite.  it tests the functionality of
                                              ^
Missing an uppercase here.

> +# the maintenance print record-instruction command, but does not check the
> +# syntax, only if the command finds or fails to find recorded history.
> +
> +if ![supports_reverse] {
> +    return
> +}
> +
> +standard_testfile
> +
> +if { [prepare_for_testing "failed to prepare" $testfile $srcfile] } {
> +    return -1
> +}
> +
> +proc test_print { has_history level test_name } {
> +    gdb_test_multiple "maint print record-instruction $level" $test_name {
> +	-re -wrap ".*Not enough recorded history.*" {
> +	    gdb_assert !$has_history $test_name
> +	}
> +
> +    -re -wrap ".*changed.*" {
> +	    gdb_assert $has_history $test_name
> +	}
> +    }
> +}
> +
> +if { ![runto_main] } {
> +    return 0
> +}
> +
> +test_print false "" "print before starting to record"
> +
> +if [supports_process_record] {
> +    # Activate process record/replay
> +    gdb_test_no_output "record" "turn on process record"
> +}
> +

I do not think the rest of the test makes much sense if
[supports_process_record] returns false, does it?  I guess that
everything below this point should be be in the if block.

Another approach might to have the initial test (at the top of the file)
check for both supports_reverse and supports_process_record and ignore
the test if either feature is not supported.  WDYT?

For what it is worth, the rest of the patch looks OK to me.

Best,
Lancelot.

> +test_print false "" "print before any instruction"
> +
> +gdb_test "stepi 3" ".*" "collecting history"
> +test_print true "" "print current after executing a bit"
> +test_print true "-1" "print previous after executing a bit"
> +test_print false "1" "print following after executing a bit"
> +
> +gdb_test "reverse-stepi" ".*" "moving back"
> +test_print true "" "print current after reversing"
> +test_print true "-1" "print previous after reversing"
> +test_print true "1" "print following after reversing"
> +
> +test_print false "-10" "trying to print too far back"
> +test_print false "10" "trying to print too far forward"
> -- 
> 2.38.1
>