From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 64247 invoked by alias); 5 Oct 2016 08:15:15 -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 64223 invoked by uid 89); 5 Oct 2016 08:15:14 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM,SPF_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy=among X-HELO: mail-oi0-f54.google.com Received: from mail-oi0-f54.google.com (HELO mail-oi0-f54.google.com) (209.85.218.54) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Wed, 05 Oct 2016 08:15:13 +0000 Received: by mail-oi0-f54.google.com with SMTP id m72so92248506oik.3 for ; Wed, 05 Oct 2016 01:15:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=0qOQvRzfJAJpy+pvhCwWXgRgNM5B58vJJ8UGu70pKCs=; b=bVAYe3idNbX7y7/PkQV6X7hO6Y9m75KSqqyGJ1QA1TQWvfC82t4TBjbrOtED98Eaok iDngXES1T4PASnRk+gmISnQO3isck29tx3njTiSNLVhzMycQVadA623Ebs7xYncZPbPV isjpnwbIVAjuGrjYn4gMiwIADR6S6TgOdvM2SZdQX8xf/Xi9GtCo4QujvsGkOnYPhPQ9 HFannqyZuXnzpEDZKHAf/8iqmUIOyeOdqrVnJq2ZmA/CyDXvqoUxOVLl+rRb6TiHLc3D gyuzd71FkM1qj+nMxYH8YWPKv7fkb1GXyllT9cvWYXgZVmZsThJvQ48vnLOa6633Y+SV Yrqg== X-Gm-Message-State: AA6/9RlghfL36UfeKSiwHx9yWfzi5jOXuJ8GWOwE0jOFoMe5+UEWZZp5yEDkrWDziYtkFsg7HnJlvQOJV0O8pg== X-Received: by 10.202.52.3 with SMTP id b3mr6602935oia.31.1475655308914; Wed, 05 Oct 2016 01:15:08 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.202.221.3 with HTTP; Wed, 5 Oct 2016 01:15:08 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20161004163944.GA8002@host1.jankratochvil.net> References: <20161003203500.GA2251@host1.jankratochvil.net> <20161004161900.GA6231@host1.jankratochvil.net> <20161004163944.GA8002@host1.jankratochvil.net> From: Yao Qi Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2016 08:15:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [testsuite patch] Fix recent GCC FAIL: gdb.arch/i386-signal.exp To: Jan Kratochvil Cc: "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2016-10/txt/msg00074.txt.bz2 On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 5:39 PM, Jan Kratochvil wrote: > 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 .d= ebug_line >> > > entry for the 'mov $0x0,%eax' instruction and I also do not think it= is >> > > relevant to the purpose of this testfile. >> > >> > Why do we need the second one? >> >> I find it more cleaner but that is up to you. > > To make that my reason more explanatory - given the testcase expected out= put > is affected by that missing "return 0;" and its .debug_line record I find= it > more clear for this testcase to put there the source line "return 0;" > explicitly than to depend on such implicit line by compiler as then the d= ebug > info is unclear for that line - even among different compilers. > We need the first chunk "($hex in )?main" because the unwind pc may point to the first instruction of a source line or the non-first instruction of a line. Either is possible. It doesn't matter that "callq setup" and "mov $0x0,%eax" are mapped to the same line or not. Change in gdb.arch/i386-signal.exp is good to me, but change in gdb.arch/i386-signal.c is not necessary. --=20 Yao (=E9=BD=90=E5=B0=A7)