diff options
author | Andrew Burgess <aburgess@redhat.com> | 2022-01-27 15:12:25 +0000 |
---|---|---|
committer | Andrew Burgess <aburgess@redhat.com> | 2022-02-02 16:27:36 +0000 |
commit | a591084285cc16a435258641691aa0a8f5bf42ee (patch) | |
tree | b096fa3b9073303942ef7c20070bef1092648ae5 /gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/break.exp | |
parent | 82d0a72cdc9ca6cd37a8987e2bcd2eb707c51149 (diff) | |
download | fsf-binutils-gdb-a591084285cc16a435258641691aa0a8f5bf42ee.zip fsf-binutils-gdb-a591084285cc16a435258641691aa0a8f5bf42ee.tar.gz fsf-binutils-gdb-a591084285cc16a435258641691aa0a8f5bf42ee.tar.bz2 |
gdb: test to check one aspect of the linespec parsing code
While working on the fix for PR cli/28665 (see previous couple of
commits), I was playing with making a change in the linespec parsing
code. Specifically, I was thinking about whether the spec_string for
LINESPEC_LOCATION locations should ever be nullptr.
I made a change to prevent the spec_string from ever being nullptr,
tested gdb, and saw no regressions.
However, as part of this work I was reviewing how the breakpoint code
handles this case (spec_string being nullptr), and spotted that in
parse_breakpoint_sals the nullptr case is specifically handled, so
changing this should have caused a regression. But I didn't see one.
So, this commit adds a comment in location.c mentioning that the
nullptr case is (a) not an oversight, and (b) is required. Then I add
a new test to gdb.base/break.exp that ensures a change in this area
will cause a regression.
This test passes on current gdb, but with my modified (and broken)
gdb, the test would fail.
Diffstat (limited to 'gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/break.exp')
-rw-r--r-- | gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/break.exp | 5 |
1 files changed, 5 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/break.exp b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/break.exp index 39a8f32..2c939ad 100644 --- a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/break.exp +++ b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/break.exp @@ -520,6 +520,11 @@ gdb_test "break" \ "Note: breakpoints \[0-9\]*, \[0-9\]* and \[0-9\]* also set at .*Breakpoint \[0-9\]*.*" \ "break on default location, 4th time" +# Check setting a breakpoint at the default location with a condition attached. +gdb_test "break if (1)" \ + "Note: breakpoints \[0-9\]*, \[0-9\]*, \[0-9\]* and \[0-9\]* also set at .*Breakpoint \[0-9\]*.*" \ + "break on the default location, 5th time, but with a condition" + # Verify that a "silent" breakpoint can be set, and that GDB is indeed # "silent" about its triggering. # |