Re: [PATCH] Add more 'step' tests to gdb.base/watchpoint.exp

[John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org>]

On 12/2/23 7:06 PM, Kevin Buettner wrote:
> The test gdb.base/watchpoint.exp has a proc named 'test_stepping'
> which claims to "Test stepping and other mundane operations with
> watchpoints enabled".  It sets a watchpoint on ival2, performs an
> inferior function call (which is not at all mundane), and uses 'next',
> 'until', and, finally, does a 'step'.
> 
> However, that final 'step' command steps to (but not over/through) the
> line at which the assignment to ival2 takes place.  At no time while
> performing these operations is a watchpoint hit.
> 
> This commit adds a test to see what happens when stepping over/through
> the assignment to ival2.  The watchpoint on ival2 should be triggered
> during this step.  I've added another 'step' to make sure that the
> correct statement is reached after performing the watchpoint-hitting
> step.
> 
> After running the 'test_stepping' proc, gdb.base/watchpoint.exp does
> a clean_restart before doing further tests, so nothing depends upon
> 'test_stepping' to stop at the particular statement at which it had
> been stopping.
> 
> I've examined all tests which set watchpoints and step.  I haven't
> been able to identify a(nother) test case which tests what happens
> when stepping over/through a statement which triggers a watchpoint.
> Therefore, adding these new 'step' tests is testing something which
> hasn't being tested elsewhere.
> ---
>   gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/watchpoint.exp | 9 +++++++++
>   1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/watchpoint.exp b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/watchpoint.exp
> index 70864655c6d..24bc8276951 100644
> --- a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/watchpoint.exp
> +++ b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/watchpoint.exp
> @@ -340,6 +340,15 @@ proc test_stepping {} {
>   	}
>   
>   	gdb_test "step" "ival2 = count.*" "step to ival2 assignment"
> +
> +	# Check that the watchpoint is triggered during a step.
> +	gdb_test "step" \
> +		 "\[Ww\]atchpoint.*: ival2.*Old value = -1.*New value = 4.*ival3 = count; ival4 = count;" \
> +		 "step over ival2 assignment"
> +
> +	# Step again and check that correct statement is reached after
> +	# hitting a watchpoint during a step.
> +	gdb_test "step" "marker2 \\(\\);.*" "step to marker2"
>       }
>   }
>   

This definitely sounds like a useful thing to test, and the new test
seems correct to me AFAICT.  I'll defer to you that the test suite
doesn't already cover this case.

Reviewed-By: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org>

-- 
John Baldwin