From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16512 invoked by alias); 16 Mar 2012 08:52:21 -0000 Received: (qmail 16492 invoked by uid 22791); 16 Mar 2012 08:52:19 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 16 Mar 2012 08:52:06 +0000 Received: from int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.25]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q2G8q2uI015932 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 16 Mar 2012 04:52:03 -0400 Received: from host2.jankratochvil.net (ovpn-116-16.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.16]) by int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q2G8pwow025217 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 16 Mar 2012 04:52:01 -0400 Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2012 08:52:00 -0000 From: Jan Kratochvil To: Thomas Schwinge Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [testuite patch] Fix cross-arch .S testsuite files compatibility Message-ID: <20120316085158.GA26740@host2.jankratochvil.net> References: <20120314201849.GB1412@host2.jankratochvil.net> <87aa3ikzrs.fsf@schwinge.name> <20120315090602.GA7079@host2.jankratochvil.net> <8762e6ky5l.fsf@schwinge.name> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <8762e6ky5l.fsf@schwinge.name> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) 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: 2012-03/txt/msg00592.txt.bz2 On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 10:32:06 +0100, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 10:06:02 +0100, Jan Kratochvil wrote: > > On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 09:57:11 +0100, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > > > Can there be other semantic differences between the two? > > > > It is a good question and I am not aware of any such differences. > > Hmm, I just had a quick look, and found that, for example, tc-arm.c has > this: > > #ifdef OBJ_ELF > { "word", s_arm_elf_cons, 4 }, > { "long", s_arm_elf_cons, 4 }, > > ... and obj-elf.c: > > {"4byte", cons, 4}, > > Compared to cons, s_arm_elf_cons does quite a lot of things, for example > handle mapping symbols (which cons doesn't do, I think?). It does not seem to be needed for these testcases, they still PASS on: armv7l-unknown-linux-gnueabihf (I did not verify if they still FAIL->PASS by their specific fixes.) Thanks, Jan