From cd72150368372ac633adfe8e9c59c82274b3cd70 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Fred Fish Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2002 00:30:09 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] 2002-04-04 Fred Fish * gdb.base/step-test.exp: Update comment regarding stopping in memcpy/bcopy calls inserted as part of the compiler runtime. --- gdb/testsuite/ChangeLog | 5 +++++ gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/step-test.exp | 6 ++++++ 2 files changed, 11 insertions(+) diff --git a/gdb/testsuite/ChangeLog b/gdb/testsuite/ChangeLog index 92bb9cf8da..1a36ded4db 100644 --- a/gdb/testsuite/ChangeLog +++ b/gdb/testsuite/ChangeLog @@ -1,3 +1,8 @@ +2002-04-04 Fred Fish + + * gdb.base/step-test.exp: Update comment regarding stopping in + memcpy/bcopy calls inserted as part of the compiler runtime. + 2002-04-04 Michael Snyder * gdb.base/ovlymgr.c: Add overlay event breakpoint support. diff --git a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/step-test.exp b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/step-test.exp index 6756b5d1be..9a21136996 100644 --- a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/step-test.exp +++ b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/step-test.exp @@ -204,6 +204,12 @@ test_i "nexti over function" "nexti" \ # argument. Opinion is bitterly divided about whether this is the # right behavior for GDB or not, but we'll catch it here, so folks # won't forget about it. +# Update 4/4/2002 - Regardless of which opinion you have, you would +# probably have to agree that gdb is currently behaving as designed, +# in the absence of additional code to not stop in functions used +# internally by the compiler. Since the testsuite should be checking +# for conformance to the design, the correct behavior is to accept the +# cases where gdb stops in memcpy/bcopy. gdb_test \ "break [gdb_get_line_number "step-test.exp: large struct by value"]" \