From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 62834 invoked by alias); 19 Jul 2016 18:04:48 -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 62823 invoked by uid 89); 19 Jul 2016 18:04:47 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-3.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=qualifier, Hx-languages-length:1468, H*M:fcd8 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 (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Tue, 19 Jul 2016 18:04:37 +0000 Received: from int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.24]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 111E23B723; Tue, 19 Jul 2016 18:04:36 +0000 (UTC) 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 u6JI4XSX025970; Tue, 19 Jul 2016 14:04:34 -0400 Subject: Re: [testsuite patch] Skip py-unwind.exp on x86_64 -m32 To: Yao Qi , Jan Kratochvil References: <20160717143003.GA12147@host1.jankratochvil.net> <20160718113348.GA25789@host1.jankratochvil.net> Cc: "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" , Sergio Durigan Junior From: Pedro Alves Message-ID: Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2016 18:04:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.1.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2016-07/txt/msg00206.txt.bz2 On 07/19/2016 11:06 AM, Yao Qi wrote: > IMO, it is wrong that py-unwind.py creates an x86_64 specific unwinder. I find the "wrong" qualifier a bit too strong, since it is probably not possible to make this sort of test completely arch-independent. > py-unwind.py should create a unwinder instance according to the arch if the > arch is supported. On i386, or other archs, like arm, mips, py-unwind.py > can error, and py-unwind.exp knows unwinder is not created successfully, > and mark the test unsupported. If people want to extend py-unwind.py for > their archs, they can modify py-unwind.py to create an unwinder instance > for their own arch. > >> The problem here is that py-unwind.exp thinks that it runs on arch x86_64 but >> it runs on arch i386. >> >> Even if py-unwind.exp did support i386 it would still FAIL because it would >> run the testcase for %rbp/%rsp/%rip. > > py-unwind.exp does nothing on arch specific thing, so py-unwind.exp shouldn't > be aware of the arch difference, but py-unwind.py should. > Looks like py-unwind.c is ABI-specific as well, and that there's not much code that can be shared between architectures in py-unwind.py, though. It may be we'd end up with separate py-unwind-$arch.py|c files even. How about we handle this in the .exp file for now and leave something more complicated for when the test is first ported to some other arch. WDYT? Thanks, Pedro Alves