From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Corinna Vinschen To: gdb-patches Subject: Re: [PATCH]: testsuite/gdb.base/constvars.exp Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 09:15:00 -0000 Message-id: <20010926180718.A9673@cygbert.vinschen.de> References: <20010925192434.M29024@cygbert.vinschen.de> <3BB0C224.AB324D56@cygnus.com> <3BB0CB81.8385E123@redhat.com> <3BB0F122.3E45B3ED@cygnus.com> X-SW-Source: 2001-09/msg00352.html On Tue, Sep 25, 2001 at 02:03:30PM -0700, Michael Snyder wrote: > Fernando Nasser wrote: > > > > Michael Snyder wrote: > > > > > > Corinna Vinschen wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > I patched the test constvars.exp to get rid of the $gcc_compiled > > > > compile dependencies which result in XFAIL behaviour when the > > > > tests are compiled with GCC. AFAICS, they aren't needed if just > > > > the tests are more correct. > > > > > > > > E.g., the testsuite expects strings like "unsigned long" while > > > > gdb may also emit "long unsigned" or "long unsigned int". > > > > > > > > The below patch cares for that. > > > > > > > > Corinna > > > > > > The test was originally submitted by HP, and probably > > > worked only with the HP compiler. I like the idea of > > > extending itto work with GCC, but I wonder -- will this > > > work with stabs? Or only with dwarf? > > > > > > And if it won't work with stabs -- do we care? > > > > > > > Can someone please help us and try it with stabs? > > OK, I've tried it. Alas, it does not work. And native Linux > still uses stabs, so that means we care. ;-( Sorry, Corinna. > It's a good change, but we need some kind of test that applies > the xfails for stabs and not for dwarf. > > In the meantime, if you want to just check in the regular expression > changes, I'm sure that would be OK -- it would preserve your work. Ok, I've checked in the regular expression changes alone. Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Cygwin Developer Red Hat, Inc. mailto:vinschen@redhat.com