From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-12338-listarch-gdb-patches=sourceware.cygnus.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 20936 invoked by alias); 30 Jan 2002 20:16:55 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sources.redhat.com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com
Received: (qmail 20800 invoked from network); 30 Jan 2002 20:16:52 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO monkey.daikokuya.demon.co.uk) (158.152.184.26)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 30 Jan 2002 20:16:52 -0000
Received: from neil by monkey.daikokuya.demon.co.uk with local (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian))
	id 16W1By-00037j-00; Wed, 30 Jan 2002 20:18:50 +0000
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 12:16:00 -0000
From: Neil Booth <neil@daikokuya.demon.co.uk>
To: Geoff Keating <geoffk@redhat.com>
Cc: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: 6 GCC regressions, 6 new, with your patch on 2002-01-29T19:24:37Z.
Message-ID: <20020130201849.GB11985@daikokuya.demon.co.uk>
References: <200201292158.g0TLw6f14961@maat.cygnus.com> <20020129222235.GA4190@daikokuya.demon.co.uk> <jmsn8ooi5w.fsf@desire.geoffk.org> <20020129233808.GA4967@daikokuya.demon.co.uk> <200201300518.g0U5ICY25065@desire.geoffk.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <200201300518.g0U5ICY25065@desire.geoffk.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.25i
X-SW-Source: 2002-01/txt/msg00783.txt.bz2

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;