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

Michael Elizabeth Chastain
2003-11-06T19:10:28Z

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