From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9201 invoked by alias); 1 Jul 2003 22:30:28 -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 9181 invoked from network); 1 Jul 2003 22:30:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO crack.them.org) (146.82.138.56) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 1 Jul 2003 22:30:28 -0000 Received: from dsl093-172-017.pit1.dsl.speakeasy.net ([66.93.172.17] helo=nevyn.them.org ident=mail) by crack.them.org with asmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 19XTem-0000O6-00; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 17:31:25 -0500 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 19XTdo-0003ig-00; Tue, 01 Jul 2003 18:30:24 -0400 Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2003 22:30:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Andrew Cagney Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: RFC: Some more store.exp failures - tweak the test Message-ID: <20030701223024.GB13782@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Andrew Cagney , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <20030701215538.GA5542@nevyn.them.org> <3F0209A5.9080704@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3F0209A5.9080704@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2003-07/txt/msg00023.txt.bz2 On Tue, Jul 01, 2003 at 06:22:29PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote: > >This patch fixes the store.exp failures for ARM. Two changes: > > - Change char to signed char, because some patterns match -1. If anyone > > prefers changing the patterns to match 255 would work too. > > Yes, but use something like `typedef signed char charest' so that the > function's pattern doesn't need tweaking. OK. > > - Change "return l" to "return l + r". "up; print r" doesn't work if > > "r" is not live across the function call; even without optimization > > GCC will re-use the register. Then we lose. > > As an aside, isn't that a GCC bug? If no optimization, shouldn't "r" > have a single permenant location? The user's going to expect it to > work, no matter how dumb their code. Hmm, maybe. I'll ask a couple of GCC folks what they think, but I doubt this will ever change - -O0 code is horrible enough already. > >I believe these changes don't impact the point of the test. If nobody > >disagrees with me, I'd like to commit this. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer