From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4670 invoked by alias); 26 Mar 2003 09:13:20 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 4663 invoked from network); 26 Mar 2003 09:13:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 26 Mar 2003 09:13:20 -0000 Received: from int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (nat-pool-rdu-dmz.redhat.com [172.16.52.200] (may be forged)) by mx1.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2Q9DJQ06415 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 04:13:19 -0500 Received: from potter.sfbay.redhat.com (potter.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.27.15]) by int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2Q9DIQ23725 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 04:13:19 -0500 Received: from cygbert.vinschen.de (vpn50-16.rdu.redhat.com [172.16.50.16]) by potter.sfbay.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2Q9DH527682 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 01:13:17 -0800 Received: (from corinna@localhost) by cygbert.vinschen.de (8.11.6/8.9.3/Linux sendmail 8.9.3) id h2Q9DEL27143 for gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 10:13:14 +0100 Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 09:13:00 -0000 From: Corinna Vinschen To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] xstormy16-tdep.c: Set chars to unsigned Message-ID: <20030326091314.GT23762@cygbert.vinschen.de> Reply-To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Mail-Followup-To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <20030325161831.GF23762@cygbert.vinschen.de> <3E8083BD.90807@redhat.com> <20030325163554.GH23762@cygbert.vinschen.de> <3E8089A9.8070805@redhat.com> <20030325170703.GM23762@cygbert.vinschen.de> <3E80E517.2010409@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3E80E517.2010409@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-SW-Source: 2003-03/txt/msg00512.txt.bz2 On Tue, Mar 25, 2003 at 06:24:07PM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote: > >print/d (int) (char) -1^M > >$11 = 255^M > > But were they normal before this patch? I.e., did the patch affect this > test's results? No, these tests returned the same results with and without my patch. > If they didn't then there is a bug in the sizeof.exp test since it is > ment to check that GDB/target agree on the basics. Just a guess: The sizeof tests are using numerical constants. The charset tests are using character strings. The evaluation is subtly different in that the evaluation of character strings require the target being active. There's a part of interaction not required for the tests used in sizeof.exp. Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Cygwin Developer Red Hat, Inc. mailto:vinschen@redhat.com