From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca (simark.ca [158.69.221.121]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D03503858C50 for ; Mon, 17 Oct 2022 15:28:24 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org D03503858C50 Received: from [10.0.0.11] (unknown [217.28.27.60]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8BB6E1E0D5; Mon, 17 Oct 2022 11:28:24 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <5b4c5930-62a3-21d0-6161-89fb3f6a85ef@simark.ca> Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2022 11:28:24 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.3.1 Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] gdb: Fix issue with Clang CLI macros Content-Language: en-US To: Bruno Larsen , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20221017102627.2540273-1-blarsen@redhat.com> <42c22074-89cb-f23b-eea1-faeea22026d7@simark.ca> <6e4ad77c-1ef5-0512-d4c5-29947551b0ce@redhat.com> From: Simon Marchi In-Reply-To: <6e4ad77c-1ef5-0512-d4c5-29947551b0ce@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, DKIM_VALID_EF, NICE_REPLY_A, SPF_HELO_PASS, SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: gdb-patches@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2022 15:28:26 -0000 On 2022-10-17 10:54, Bruno Larsen wrote: > Hi Simon, > > thanks for the review. I've fixed everything else you mentioned, but: > > On 17/10/2022 14:32, Simon Marchi wrote: >>> +#https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/54506 >>> + >>> +load_lib dwarf.exp >>> + >>> +if {![dwarf2_support]} { >>> +    return 0 >>> +} >>> +if {![test_compiler_info gcc-*-*]} { >>> +    untested "dwarf assembler needs GCC" >>> +} >>> + >>> +standard_testfile .S >>> + >>> +set srcfile macro-source-path.c >> copy-pasto.  Actually, can you use: >> >>    standard_testfile .c .S >> >> and then use $srcfile for the .c, and $srcfile2 (which you can reassign >> to $asm_file for clarity) for the .S? >> > This isn't actually a copy-pasto problem. I am using macro-source-path.c because I only need a .c file with a main function and the label, so I decided to go with a file that was already there. Do you think I should have a .c file anyway, or should I just document this for v3? I prefer not to share test files randomly between tests, for consistency, clarity, and so there aren't surprises when you modify a test. Simon