Re: 6 GCC regressions, 6 new, with your patch on 2002-01-29T19:24:37Z.

[Neil Booth <neil@daikokuya.demon.co.uk>]

Geoff Keating wrote:-

> Hmmm.  Actually, the first test, bitfields.exp, produces the warnings;

Hi Geoff,

This patch should fix the warnings.  I'll turn my attention to the enum
issue once I've got rth's Alpha issue sorted (I've got some ideas about
that, but I'm just building a cross-compiler to try and reproduce the
situation).

I think this patch makes the tests do what they were supposed to do
previously, but without warnings.  I'd appreciate if you or someone
with write access to GDB would apply it.

Thanks,

Neil.

	* testsuite/gdb.base/bitfields.c: Correct assignments to
	bitfields to avoid warnings.

Index: bitfields.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/bitfields.c,v
retrieving revision 1.1.1.2
diff -u -p -r1.1.1.2 bitfields.c
--- bitfields.c	1999/06/28 16:02:40	1.1.1.2
+++ bitfields.c	2002/01/30 20:10:35
@@ -80,7 +80,7 @@ int main ()
   break1 ();
   flags.uc = 0;
 
-  flags.s1 = 1;
+  flags.s1 = -1;
   break1 ();
   flags.s1 = 0;
 
@@ -131,10 +131,10 @@ int main ()
   flags.u3 = 0;
   flags.u9 = 0;
 
-  flags.s1 = 0x1;
-  flags.s2 = 0x3;
-  flags.s3 = 0x7;
-  flags.s9 = 0x1FF;
+  flags.s1 = -1;
+  flags.s2 = -1;
+  flags.s3 = -1;
+  flags.s9 = -1;
   flags.sc = 0xFF;
   break2 ();
   flags.s1 = 0;
@@ -169,20 +169,20 @@ int main ()
   break4 ();
 
   /* Maximally negative values */
-  flags.s1 = 0x1;
-  flags.s2 = 0x2;
-  flags.s3 = 0x4;
-  flags.s9 = 0x100;
+  flags.s1 = -0x1;
+  flags.s2 = -0x2;
+  flags.s3 = -0x4;
+  flags.s9 = -0x100;
   /* Extract bitfield value so that bitfield.exp can check if the target
      understands signed bitfields.  */
   i = flags.s9;
   break4 ();
 
   /* -1 */
-  flags.s1 = 0x1;
-  flags.s2 = 0x3;
-  flags.s3 = 0x7;
-  flags.s9 = 0x1FF;
+  flags.s1 = -1;
+  flags.s2 = -1;
+  flags.s3 = -1;
+  flags.s9 = -1;
   break4 ();
 
   flags.s1 = 0;