From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31321 invoked by alias); 17 Jan 2007 05:59:54 -0000 Received: (qmail 31313 invoked by uid 22791); 17 Jan 2007 05:59:53 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from nevyn.them.org (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31.1) with ESMTP; Wed, 17 Jan 2007 05:59:49 +0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1H73pj-000537-QS; Wed, 17 Jan 2007 00:59:39 -0500 Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 05:59:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Mark Kettenis Cc: deuling@de.ibm.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFA]: gdb/testsuite/gdb.arch/altivec-regs.exp Broken testcase Message-ID: <20070117055939.GA19331@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Mark Kettenis , deuling@de.ibm.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <45AC7532.6010108@de.ibm.com> <200701162128.l0GLS1U4024821@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200701162128.l0GLS1U4024821@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2007-01/txt/msg00377.txt.bz2 Mark is right again. The fact that the testsuite isn't copying should point us at the fact that the output changed, and we don't know why. On Tue, Jan 16, 2007 at 10:28:01PM +0100, Mark Kettenis wrote: > This worries me a bit. So in the past we were able to determine the > endianness automagically, but now we don't? Do we understand why? > Doesn't this mean that something is broken that worked before? More precisely: > > + -re "The target is assumed to be big endian.*" { > > + pass "endianess" > > + set endianness "big" > > + } GDB has concluded from something (an earlier set command? one of my gdbarch initialization changes?) that the user has specified the endianness. Looking at it now, it looks to me like I've got a condition backwards in show_endian. The != should actually be an ==. I can't test a patch for that until I get home next week though. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery