Re: [patch/rfc] Rewrite "structs" testcase

[Michael Elizabeth Chastain <mec@shout.net>]

mec> # And rewritten by Andrew Cagney  (cagney@redhat.com)
ac> I'll just drop that.

Okay by me.

mec> There are a lot of duplicate test names too.  It would be good
mec> to uniquify them.
ac> Yes, working on it.  I can't see a way to fix things like "run_to_main" 
ac> though.

If you can get the low-hanging fruit then that is good enough
for now.

ac> Some debug info prints "long double", some prints "tld".  I've changed 
ac> whats printed to hopefully be something more robust ...

Sounds good.

ac> (gdb) FAIL: gdb.base/structs.exp: ptype foo1.a for 1tld
ac> p/c fun1()
ac> $1 = {a = 0x08044004c400000000000000}
ac> 
ac> Seems GDB and GCC disagree over how the i386 returns floating-point 
ac> values.  My "this will always work" test has found a bug in GDB - cool. 
ac> Note that the tests do all pass for PPC.

That's the kind of test I like to see!

Can you file a PR and then make the test KFAIL for i386,
with reference to the bug report.  My recollection of the
policy is: new PASS is good, new KFAIL is really good,
new FAIL is bad.

I'll keep the test bed warm.

Michael C