From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3769 invoked by alias); 7 Mar 2005 16:58:15 -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 3741 invoked from network); 7 Mar 2005 16:58:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 7 Mar 2005 16:58:12 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.44 #1 (Debian)) id 1D8LYV-0002sg-V5; Mon, 07 Mar 2005 11:58:08 -0500 Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2005 16:58:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Manoj Iyer Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFC] gdb.base/float.exp and gdb.base/commands.exp patch Message-ID: <20050307165807.GA11032@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Manoj Iyer , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <20050303002718.GA4915@nevyn.them.org> <20050304162656.GA3334@nevyn.them.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040907i X-SW-Source: 2005-03/txt/msg00076.txt.bz2 On Mon, Mar 07, 2005 at 10:39:32AM -0600, Manoj Iyer wrote: > > > > Accepting any line number is not OK. Accepting this particular line > > number does seem plausible. Can you do that instead? > > > > If I change the current value of 57 to 82, the test will pass in powerpc > but fail on intel. Coz the generated line numbers on intel(57) and > PowerPC(82) are different. That's why you should accept both of them. > > I've done it in the past. It's not that hard to get ahold of one. > > But, as I said, I do not know what will be output. > > Might as well do this for now and fix it up later. > > > > So, does that mean you accept the patch to float.exp? Or are we still > worried about ppc32 nofpu? I think it's OK. Please post the patch + changelog for just float.exp, and check that in. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery, LLC