[pushed] Don't suppress errors inserting/removing hardware breakpoints in shared libraries.
Commit Message
On 06/06/2014 12:01 AM, Pedro Alves wrote:
> Yes, but no need to match by target, we can do like e.g.,
> gdb.base/signull.exp does, and check whether "x /b 0" manages
> to read memory. If so, then skip the test. Any sane target with
> an MMU will leave page 0 unmapped, so no need to look for some other
> address.
How about the patch below?
Comments
On 06/06/2014 04:08 AM, Yao Qi wrote:
> On 06/06/2014 12:01 AM, Pedro Alves wrote:
>> Yes, but no need to match by target, we can do like e.g.,
>> gdb.base/signull.exp does, and check whether "x /b 0" manages
>> to read memory. If so, then skip the test. Any sane target with
>> an MMU will leave page 0 unmapped, so no need to look for some other
>> address.
>
> How about the patch below?
>
OK. Thanks!
On 06/06/2014 04:40 PM, Pedro Alves wrote:
> On 06/06/2014 04:08 AM, Yao Qi wrote:
>> On 06/06/2014 12:01 AM, Pedro Alves wrote:
>>> Yes, but no need to match by target, we can do like e.g.,
>>> gdb.base/signull.exp does, and check whether "x /b 0" manages
>>> to read memory. If so, then skip the test. Any sane target with
>>> an MMU will leave page 0 unmapped, so no need to look for some other
>>> address.
>>
>> How about the patch below?
>>
>
> OK. Thanks!
>
Thanks for the review. Patch is pushed in.
@@ -28,6 +28,16 @@ if ![runto_main] {
return -1
}
+# If we can read the memory at address 0, skip the test.
+gdb_test_multiple "x 0" "memory at address 0" {
+ -re "0x0:.*Cannot access memory at address 0x0.*$gdb_prompt $" { }
+ -re "0x0:.*Error accessing memory address 0x0.*$gdb_prompt $" { }
+ -re ".*$gdb_prompt $" {
+ untested "Memory at address 0 is readable"
+ return
+ }
+}
+
delete_breakpoints
# Test whether the target supports hardware breakpoints at all.