From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11813 invoked by alias); 6 Nov 2003 19:10:28 -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 11806 invoked from network); 6 Nov 2003 19:10:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO concert.shout.net) (204.253.184.25) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 6 Nov 2003 19:10:27 -0000 Received: from duracef.shout.net (duracef.shout.net [204.253.184.12]) by concert.shout.net (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hA6JAQ97018111; Thu, 6 Nov 2003 13:10:26 -0600 Received: from duracef.shout.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by duracef.shout.net (8.12.10/8.12.9) with ESMTP id hA6JAQfa005667; Thu, 6 Nov 2003 13:10:26 -0600 Received: (from mec@localhost) by duracef.shout.net (8.12.10/8.12.9/Submit) id hA6JAQ0S005666; Thu, 6 Nov 2003 14:10:26 -0500 Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2003 19:10:00 -0000 From: Michael Elizabeth Chastain Message-Id: <200311061910.hA6JAQ0S005666@duracef.shout.net> To: ac131313@redhat.com Subject: Re: [patch/rfc] Rewrite "structs" testcase Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com X-SW-Source: 2003-11/txt/msg00092.txt.bz2 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