Re: Regression on gdb.ada/null_array.exp [Re: [patch] DW_AT_byte_size for array type entries]

[Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@redhat.com>]

On Thu, 04 Nov 2010 19:23:46 +0100, Joel Brobecker wrote:
> > OK, so could you XFAIL it? <=gcc-4.4 or the missing ___XA type are both fine
> > IMO.  I will do it otherwise.
> 
> I would do it, normally, but I think it's easier if you do it, because
> I would not be able to test the XFAIL case.

Checked-in.

BTW I did not find any difference in the ___XA DIEs so I used the <=4.4 check.



Thanks,
Jan


http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-cvs/2010-11/msg00021.html

--- src/gdb/testsuite/ChangeLog	2010/11/03 14:21:58	1.2496
+++ src/gdb/testsuite/ChangeLog	2010/11/04 18:52:11	1.2497
@@ -1,3 +1,9 @@
+2010-11-04  Jan Kratochvil  <jan.kratochvil@redhat.com>
+	    Joel Brobecker  <brobecker@adacore.com>
+
+	* gdb.ada/null_array.exp (print my_table): Call get_compiler_info and
+	check test_compiler_info.
+
 2010-11-03  Ken Werner  <ken.werner@de.ibm.com>
 
 	* gdb.base/gnu_vector.exp: Adjust expect messages.
--- src/gdb/testsuite/gdb.ada/null_array.exp	2010/01/01 07:31:51	1.5
+++ src/gdb/testsuite/gdb.ada/null_array.exp	2010/11/04 18:52:11	1.6
@@ -37,6 +37,15 @@
 set bp_location [gdb_get_line_number "START" ${testdir}/foo.adb]
 runto "foo.adb:$bp_location"
 
+if [get_compiler_info ${binfile}] {
+    return -1;
+}
+
+if {[test_compiler_info {gcc-[0-3]-*}]
+    || [test_compiler_info {gcc-4-[0-4]-*}]} {
+    # Ada array bounds are missing in older GCCs.
+    setup_xfail *-*-* 
+}
 gdb_test "print my_table" \
          "= \\(\\)" \
          "print my_table"