From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10782 invoked by alias); 11 Jul 2003 12:35:49 -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 10730 invoked from network); 11 Jul 2003 12:35:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO walton.kettenis.dyndns.org) (62.163.169.212) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 11 Jul 2003 12:35:45 -0000 Received: from elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org (elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org [192.168.0.2]) by walton.kettenis.dyndns.org (8.12.6p2/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h6BCZiaM003527; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 14:35:44 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from kettenis@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org) Received: from elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org (8.12.6p2/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h6BCZit3005879; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 14:35:44 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from kettenis@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org) Received: (from kettenis@localhost) by elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org (8.12.6p2/8.12.6/Submit) id h6BCZihA005876; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 14:35:44 +0200 (CEST) Message-Id: <200307111235.h6BCZihA005876@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org> From: Mark Kettenis Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 12:35:00 -0000 To: mludvig@suse.cz CC: aj@suse.de, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: <3F0E91CD.1000808@suse.cz> (message from Michal Ludvig on Fri, 11 Jul 2003 12:30:37 +0200) Subject: Re: Fix float/double return on x86-64 X-SW-Source: 2003-07/txt/msg00235.txt.bz2 Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 12:30:37 +0200 From: Michal Ludvig Andreas Jaeger told me that: > > The appended patch fixes these three failures on x86-64: > FAIL: gdb.base/return.exp: correct value returned double test (known problem with sparc solaris) > FAIL: gdb.base/return2.exp: float value returned successfully > FAIL: gdb.base/return2.exp: double value returned successfully > > The code does not handle complex floating point values, I'm not sure > that it's correct there but I decided to fix this issue first. > > Ok to commit for both branches? Mark, could you comment on this one, please? Could it go in? Sorry, yes, I thought I already approved that one. Turns out it slipped through the cracks after all. Please go ahead and check it in on both branches. Mark