From f389f6fef76d7cf8e8beb7061edff2155c284898 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Jan Kratochvil Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2016 21:56:46 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] testsuite: Fix recent GCC FAIL: gdb.arch/i386-signal.exp gcc-6.2.1-2.fc24.x86_64 (gdb) backtrace 10^M (gdb) FAIL: gdb.arch/i386-signal.exp: backtrace 10 (gdb) disas/s Dump of assembler code for function main: .../gdb/testsuite/gdb.arch/i386-signal.c: 30 { 0x000000000040057f <+0>: push %rbp 0x0000000000400580 <+1>: mov %rsp,%rbp 31 setup (); 0x0000000000400583 <+4>: callq 0x400590 => 0x0000000000400588 <+9>: mov $0x0,%eax 32 } 0x000000000040058d <+14>: pop %rbp 0x000000000040058e <+15>: retq End of assembler dump. The .exp patch is an obvious typo fix I think. The regex was written to accept "ADDR in main" and I find it OK as checking .debug_line validity is not the purpose of this testfile. gcc-4.8.5-11.el7.x86_64 did not put the 'mov $0x0,%eax' instruction there at all so there was no problem with .debug_line. gdb/testsuite/ChangeLog 2016-10-05 Jan Kratochvil * gdb.arch/i386-signal.exp (backtrace 10): Fix #2 typo. --- gdb/testsuite/ChangeLog | 4 ++++ gdb/testsuite/gdb.arch/i386-signal.exp | 2 +- 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/gdb/testsuite/ChangeLog b/gdb/testsuite/ChangeLog index 537ca8c15e6..cbea3b2f1d0 100644 --- a/gdb/testsuite/ChangeLog +++ b/gdb/testsuite/ChangeLog @@ -1,3 +1,7 @@ +2016-10-05 Jan Kratochvil + + * gdb.arch/i386-signal.exp (backtrace 10): Fix #2 typo. + 2016-10-05 Yao Qi * lib/gdb.exp (support_complex_tests): Return zero if diff --git a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.arch/i386-signal.exp b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.arch/i386-signal.exp index 276b7c0830a..51a3a25f4e5 100644 --- a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.arch/i386-signal.exp +++ b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.arch/i386-signal.exp @@ -35,6 +35,6 @@ gdb_load ${binfile} runto func gdb_test "backtrace 10" \ - "#0 ($hex in )?func.*\r\n#1 \r\n#2 ($hex in)?main.*" + "#0 ($hex in )?func.*\r\n#1 \r\n#2 ($hex in )?main.*" gdb_test "finish" "Run till exit from \#0 func.*" -- 2.30.2