From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27372 invoked by alias); 10 Jan 2014 10:57:43 -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 27360 invoked by uid 89); 10 Jan 2014 10:57:42 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 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; Fri, 10 Jan 2014 10:57:41 +0000 Received: from int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.24]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s0AAvdbT009317 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 10 Jan 2014 05:57:39 -0500 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.11]) by int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s0AAvcDq014385; Fri, 10 Jan 2014 05:57:38 -0500 Message-ID: <52CFD221.3050100@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 10:57:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130625 Thunderbird/17.0.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Sergio Durigan Junior CC: Yao Qi , GDB Patches Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix gdb.trace/mi-traceframe-changed.exp to check for target trace support References: <52CF4B40.3030500@codesourcery.com> <52CF57CF.9030503@codesourcery.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2014-01/txt/msg00273.txt.bz2 On 01/10/2014 03:57 AM, Sergio Durigan Junior wrote: > On Friday, January 10 2014, Yao Qi wrote: > >> Ah, I read the patch and mi-traceframe-change.exp again, and find my >> last comment is wrong. Sorry for the confusion. > > Thank you! I was secretly wondering whether my patch was correct or > not, because I thought the testcase was intended to be run partially on > native debugging, as you explained. I was going to e-mail something > about it tomorrow, but you were faster :-). > >> The first half of mi-traceframe-changed.exp (test_tfind_tfile) is to >> test "=traceframe-changed" on tfile target, which is produced by >> tfile.c. It is expected to run on native debugging. The second half >> of mi-traceframe-changed.exp (test_tfile_remote) is to test >> "=traceframe-changed" on remote target with a gdbserver connected. We >> can see mi-traceframe-changed.exp has already have the code to check >> target supports tracing or not. >> >> The root cause is that tfile.c isn't portable and unable to produce >> trace file properly for s390x. Search FIXME in it. > > Indeed, thanks for pointing that. Is it the register block size? What's the actual error that causes / you're seeing? >> We should skip test_find_tfile for targets other than x86-linux or >> x86_64-linux. Alternatively, we can modify tfile.c for s390x, but I >> think "generating tfile on a unsupported-tracing target" isn't useful. > > OK, WDYT of this version then? -- Pedro Alves