Re: [RFA] Fix an error in value_change_enclosing_type

[Elena Zannoni <ezannoni@redhat.com>]

Pierre Muller writes:
 > A 22:39 22/10/2002, Elena Zannoni a écrit :
 > >muller@cerbere.u-strasbg.fr writes:
 > > > At 17:05 18/10/2002 -0400, Elena Zannoni wrote:
 > > > >Pierre Muller writes:
 > > > > > 
 > > > > > 
 > > > > > 
 > > > > > the function value_change_enclosing_type
 > > > > > does not set the enlclosing_type field correctly if
 > > > > > the new_encl_type has a bigger length that the value type.
 > > > > > 
 > > > > > Its seems quite astonishing that this has not been noticed before, 
 > > > > > but I discovered it when trying to get 
 > > > > > the fpc-abi.c code to work correctly.
 > > > > > 
 > > > >
 > > > >The fix seems OK. However, do you have a small testcase? It would be
 > > > >good to add it to the testsuite.
 > > > Sorry, but I don't have any, because I really don't even know
 > > > if this code is ever executed for C code. It is for
 > > > Free Pascal generated code, that is how I discovered that bug.
 > > > But I can't add tests with Free Pascal anyhow.
 > > > 
 > >
 > >Oh, ok.
 > >
 > > > >Does this fix changes the results for the already existing tests?
 > > > 
 > > > Sorry, but I never worked with the testsuite,
 > > > so I can't answer this question.
 > > > 
 > >
 > >Could you run make check in your gdb/testsuite directory in the build
 > >tree?  All I meant is, whether or not the test results are different
 > >before and after your change.
 > >
 > >thanks
 > >Elena
 > 
 > 
 > I tried to create a test program
 > using C++ code, but it does never seem to
 > use the code that I modified...
 > 
 > Thus, as I expected, the testsuite is unchanged:
 > 
 > Tested on a i386 linux  box:
 > (note that pthreads libs is not installed on that machine,
 > which creates several failures)
 > cvs tree from 29/10/2002:
 > 

There is on more pass with your patch, looks like. Which test passed?
It could be a transient failure.

Otherwise, ok.

Elena


 >                 === gdb Summary ===
 > 
 > # of expected passes            8235
 > # of unexpected failures        52
 > # of unexpected successes       10
 > # of expected failures          168
 > # of unresolved testcases       3
 > # of untested testcases         9
 > # of unsupported tests          4
 > /home/pierre/gdb/build/origdb/testsuite/../../gdb/gdb version  2002-10-29-cvs -nx
 > 
 > same cvs tree + my patch :
 > 
 > 
 >                 === gdb Summary ===
 > 
 > # of expected passes            8236
 > # of unexpected failures        51
 > # of unexpected successes       10
 > # of expected failures          168
 > # of unresolved testcases       3
 > # of untested testcases         9
 > # of unsupported tests          4
 > /home/pierre/gdb/build/origdb/testsuite/../../gdb/gdb version  2002-10-29-cvs -nx
 > 
 > 
 > But  the only difference is between gdbcvs.sum and modgdb.sum
 > is 
 > 5166c5166
 > < FAIL: gdb.c++/annota2.exp: annotate-quit
 > ---
 > > PASS: gdb.c++/annota2.exp: annotate-quit
 > 
 > which, when you look into gdb.c++/annota2.exp 
 > is said to be a tests that fails sometimes, but unreproducably.
 > 
 > So I think that we can consider that the 
 > testsuite result is unchanged.
 > 
 > Can I commit the patch?