* [PATCH] Remove some KPASSes in gdb.base/callfuncs.exp
@ 2012-10-23 18:27 Mark Kettenis
2012-10-24 13:48 ` [testsuite commit] Fix -m32 results [Re: [PATCH] Remove some KPASSes in gdb.base/callfuncs.exp] Jan Kratochvil
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Mark Kettenis @ 2012-10-23 18:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gdb-patches
Just fixed the bugs. Committed as obvious.
2012-10-23 Mark Kettenis <kettenis@gnu.org>
* gdb.base/callfuncs.exp: PR gdb/12796, gdb/12798 and gdb/12800
are now fixed.
Index: gdb.base/callfuncs.exp
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/callfuncs.exp,v
retrieving revision 1.53
diff -u -p -r1.53 callfuncs.exp
--- gdb.base/callfuncs.exp 20 Sep 2012 14:43:48 -0000 1.53
+++ gdb.base/callfuncs.exp 23 Oct 2012 18:23:12 -0000
@@ -149,19 +149,15 @@ proc do_function_calls {} {
}
if [support_complex_tests] {
- setup_kfail_for_target gdb/12798 "x86_64-*-*"
gdb_test "p t_float_complex_values(fc1, fc2)" " = 1"
gdb_test "p t_float_complex_values(fc3, fc4)" " = 0"
- setup_kfail_for_target gdb/12800 "x86_64-*-*"
gdb_test "p t_float_complex_many_args(fc1, fc2, fc3, fc4, fc1, fc2, fc3, fc4, fc1, fc2, fc3, fc4, fc1, fc2, fc3, fc4)" " = 1"
gdb_test "p t_float_complex_many_args(fc1, fc1, fc1, fc1, fc1, fc1, fc1, fc1, fc1, fc1, fc1, fc1, fc1, fc1, fc1, fc1)" " = 0"
- setup_kfail_for_target gdb/12798 "x86_64-*-*"
gdb_test "p t_double_complex_values(dc1, dc2)" " = 1"
gdb_test "p t_double_complex_values(dc3, dc4)" " = 0"
- setup_kfail_for_target gdb/12800 "x86_64-*-*"
gdb_test "p t_double_complex_many_args(dc1, dc2, dc3, dc4, dc1, dc2, dc3, dc4, dc1, dc2, dc3, dc4, dc1, dc2, dc3, dc4)" " = 1"
gdb_test "p t_double_complex_many_args(dc1, dc1, dc1, dc1, dc1, dc1, dc1, dc1, dc1, dc1, dc1, dc1, dc1, dc1, dc1, dc1)" " = 0"
@@ -246,17 +242,14 @@ proc do_function_calls {} {
if [support_complex_tests] {
- setup_kfail_for_target gdb/12796 "x86_64-*-*"
gdb_test "p t_structs_fc(struct_val1)" ".*= 3 \\+ 3 \\* I" \
"call inferior func with struct - returns float _Complex"
setup_kfail_for_target gdb/12783 "i?86-*-*"
- setup_kfail_for_target gdb/12796 "x86_64-*-*"
gdb_test "p t_structs_dc(struct_val1)" ".*= 4 \\+ 4 \\* I" \
"call inferior func with struct - returns double _Complex"
setup_kfail_for_target gdb/12783 "i?86-*-*"
- setup_kfail_for_target gdb/12796 "x86_64-*-*"
gdb_test "p t_structs_ldc(struct_val1)" "= 5 \\+ 5 \\* I" \
"call inferior func with struct - returns long double _Complex"
}
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* [testsuite commit] Fix -m32 results [Re: [PATCH] Remove some KPASSes in gdb.base/callfuncs.exp]
2012-10-23 18:27 [PATCH] Remove some KPASSes in gdb.base/callfuncs.exp Mark Kettenis
@ 2012-10-24 13:48 ` Jan Kratochvil
2012-10-24 14:35 ` Mark Kettenis
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Jan Kratochvil @ 2012-10-24 13:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Mark Kettenis; +Cc: gdb-patches
On Tue, 23 Oct 2012 20:27:40 +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> Just fixed the bugs. Committed as obvious.
It is a testsuite results regression in -m32 mode:
--- 20121023Build-gdbcvs-f18/fedora-18-x86_64/out/gdb-m32.sum 2012-10-23 03:34:35.546531678 +0200
+++ 20121024Build-gdbcvs-f18/fedora-18-x86_64/out/gdb-m32.sum 2012-10-24 03:52:42.269267826 +0200
-KPASS: gdb.base/callfuncs.exp: call inferior func with struct - returns float _Complex (PRMS gdb/12796)
-KFAIL: gdb.base/callfuncs.exp: call inferior func with struct - returns double _Complex (PRMS: gdb/12796)
-KFAIL: gdb.base/callfuncs.exp: call inferior func with struct - returns long double _Complex (PRMS: gdb/12796)
+PASS: gdb.base/callfuncs.exp: call inferior func with struct - returns float _Complex
+FAIL: gdb.base/callfuncs.exp: call inferior func with struct - returns double _Complex
+FAIL: gdb.base/callfuncs.exp: call inferior func with struct - returns long double _Complex
This is because setup_kfail_for_target is broken by design.
Checked in its workaround.
There are more incorrect uses of setup_kfail_for_target but they already KPASS
so asked in BZ for them:
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13808#c1
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12790#c1
Regards,
Jan
http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-cvs/2012-10/msg00100.html
--- src/gdb/testsuite/ChangeLog 2012/10/23 18:25:24 1.3423
+++ src/gdb/testsuite/ChangeLog 2012/10/24 13:45:50 1.3424
@@ -1,3 +1,8 @@
+2012-10-24 Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@redhat.com>
+
+ * gdb.base/callfuncs.exp (do_function_calls): Fix
+ setup_kfail_for_target for -m32 mode.
+
2012-10-23 Mark Kettenis <kettenis@gnu.org>
* gdb.base/callfuncs.exp: PR gdb/12796, gdb/12798 and gdb/12800
--- src/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/callfuncs.exp 2012/10/23 18:25:25 1.54
+++ src/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/callfuncs.exp 2012/10/24 13:45:51 1.55
@@ -245,11 +245,15 @@
gdb_test "p t_structs_fc(struct_val1)" ".*= 3 \\+ 3 \\* I" \
"call inferior func with struct - returns float _Complex"
- setup_kfail_for_target gdb/12783 "i?86-*-*"
+ if [is_x86_like_target] {
+ setup_kfail gdb/12783 "*-*-*"
+ }
gdb_test "p t_structs_dc(struct_val1)" ".*= 4 \\+ 4 \\* I" \
"call inferior func with struct - returns double _Complex"
- setup_kfail_for_target gdb/12783 "i?86-*-*"
+ if [is_x86_like_target] {
+ setup_kfail gdb/12783 "*-*-*"
+ }
gdb_test "p t_structs_ldc(struct_val1)" "= 5 \\+ 5 \\* I" \
"call inferior func with struct - returns long double _Complex"
}
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [testsuite commit] Fix -m32 results [Re: [PATCH] Remove some KPASSes in gdb.base/callfuncs.exp]
2012-10-24 13:48 ` [testsuite commit] Fix -m32 results [Re: [PATCH] Remove some KPASSes in gdb.base/callfuncs.exp] Jan Kratochvil
@ 2012-10-24 14:35 ` Mark Kettenis
2012-10-24 14:50 ` Jan Kratochvil
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Mark Kettenis @ 2012-10-24 14:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: jan.kratochvil; +Cc: gdb-patches
> Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 15:48:28 +0200
> From: Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@redhat.com>
>
> On Tue, 23 Oct 2012 20:27:40 +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> > Just fixed the bugs. Committed as obvious.
>
> It is a testsuite results regression in -m32 mode:
You have a funny defenition of regression.
The problem is just that the setup_kfail doesn't cater for non-default
compiler options.
Your "fix" has an annoying side-effect. Took me a while to figure out
where the:
Executing on host: gcc -c -o ilp3216410.o ilp3216410.c (timeout = 300)
spawn gcc -c -o ilp3216410.o ilp3216410.c
Executing on host: gcc -c -o reg6416410.o reg6416410.s (timeout = 300)
spawn gcc -c -o reg6416410.o reg6416410.s
reg6416410.s: Assembler messages:
reg6416410.s:9: Error: bad register name `%r8'
reg6416410.s:10: Error: bad register name `%r9'
reg6416410.s:11: Error: bad register name `%r10'
reg6416410.s:12: Error: bad register name `%r11'
reg6416410.s:13: Error: bad register name `%r12'
reg6416410.s:14: Error: bad register name `%r13'
reg6416410.s:15: Error: bad register name `%r14'
reg6416410.s:16: Error: bad register name `%r15'
compiler exited with status 1
output is:
reg6416410.s: Assembler messages:
reg6416410.s:9: Error: bad register name `%r8'
reg6416410.s:10: Error: bad register name `%r9'
reg6416410.s:11: Error: bad register name `%r10'
reg6416410.s:12: Error: bad register name `%r11'
reg6416410.s:15: Error: bad register name `%r14'
reg6416410.s:16: Error: bad register name `%r15'
in the middle of my test output came from.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [testsuite commit] Fix -m32 results [Re: [PATCH] Remove some KPASSes in gdb.base/callfuncs.exp]
2012-10-24 14:35 ` Mark Kettenis
@ 2012-10-24 14:50 ` Jan Kratochvil
2012-10-24 15:05 ` Mark Kettenis
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Jan Kratochvil @ 2012-10-24 14:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Mark Kettenis; +Cc: gdb-patches
On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 16:35:43 +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> Your "fix" has an annoying side-effect. Took me a while to figure out
> where the:
>
> Executing on host: gcc -c -o ilp3216410.o ilp3216410.c (timeout = 300)
> spawn gcc -c -o ilp3216410.o ilp3216410.c
> Executing on host: gcc -c -o reg6416410.o reg6416410.s (timeout = 300)
> spawn gcc -c -o reg6416410.o reg6416410.s
> reg6416410.s: Assembler messages:
> reg6416410.s:9: Error: bad register name `%r8'
> reg6416410.s:10: Error: bad register name `%r9'
> reg6416410.s:11: Error: bad register name `%r10'
> reg6416410.s:12: Error: bad register name `%r11'
> reg6416410.s:13: Error: bad register name `%r12'
> reg6416410.s:14: Error: bad register name `%r13'
> reg6416410.s:15: Error: bad register name `%r14'
> reg6416410.s:16: Error: bad register name `%r15'
> compiler exited with status 1
> output is:
> reg6416410.s: Assembler messages:
> reg6416410.s:9: Error: bad register name `%r8'
> reg6416410.s:10: Error: bad register name `%r9'
> reg6416410.s:11: Error: bad register name `%r10'
> reg6416410.s:12: Error: bad register name `%r11'
> reg6416410.s:15: Error: bad register name `%r14'
> reg6416410.s:16: Error: bad register name `%r15'
>
> in the middle of my test output came from.
It always happens for those is_ilp32_target & co. functions. But it is only
in gdb.log, not in gdb.sum.
Regards,
Jan
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [testsuite commit] Fix -m32 results [Re: [PATCH] Remove some KPASSes in gdb.base/callfuncs.exp]
2012-10-24 14:50 ` Jan Kratochvil
@ 2012-10-24 15:05 ` Mark Kettenis
2012-10-24 16:19 ` Tom Tromey
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Mark Kettenis @ 2012-10-24 15:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: jan.kratochvil; +Cc: gdb-patches
> Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 16:50:06 +0200
> From: Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@redhat.com>
>
> On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 16:35:43 +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> > Your "fix" has an annoying side-effect. Took me a while to figure out
> > where the:
> >
> > Executing on host: gcc -c -o ilp3216410.o ilp3216410.c (timeout = 300)
> > spawn gcc -c -o ilp3216410.o ilp3216410.c
> > Executing on host: gcc -c -o reg6416410.o reg6416410.s (timeout = 300)
> > spawn gcc -c -o reg6416410.o reg6416410.s
> > reg6416410.s: Assembler messages:
> > reg6416410.s:9: Error: bad register name `%r8'
> > reg6416410.s:10: Error: bad register name `%r9'
> > reg6416410.s:11: Error: bad register name `%r10'
> > reg6416410.s:12: Error: bad register name `%r11'
> > reg6416410.s:13: Error: bad register name `%r12'
> > reg6416410.s:14: Error: bad register name `%r13'
> > reg6416410.s:15: Error: bad register name `%r14'
> > reg6416410.s:16: Error: bad register name `%r15'
> > compiler exited with status 1
> > output is:
> > reg6416410.s: Assembler messages:
> > reg6416410.s:9: Error: bad register name `%r8'
> > reg6416410.s:10: Error: bad register name `%r9'
> > reg6416410.s:11: Error: bad register name `%r10'
> > reg6416410.s:12: Error: bad register name `%r11'
> > reg6416410.s:15: Error: bad register name `%r14'
> > reg6416410.s:16: Error: bad register name `%r15'
> >
> > in the middle of my test output came from.
>
> It always happens for those is_ilp32_target & co. functions. But it is only
> in gdb.log, not in gdb.sum.
Well gdb.log is what I actually look at when I'm trying to fix a bug.
Which I did, so the issue is gone from callfuncs.exp. Easier than
arguing about it.
Cheers,
Mark
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [testsuite commit] Fix -m32 results [Re: [PATCH] Remove some KPASSes in gdb.base/callfuncs.exp]
2012-10-24 15:05 ` Mark Kettenis
@ 2012-10-24 16:19 ` Tom Tromey
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Tom Tromey @ 2012-10-24 16:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Mark Kettenis; +Cc: jan.kratochvil, gdb-patches
>>>>> "Mark" == Mark Kettenis <mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl> writes:
Mark> Well gdb.log is what I actually look at when I'm trying to fix a bug.
Mark> Which I did, so the issue is gone from callfuncs.exp. Easier than
Mark> arguing about it.
If it is confusing, it would not be hard to add a note to the output
saying what proc is generating all the output.
Tom
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2012-10-24 16:19 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2012-10-23 18:27 [PATCH] Remove some KPASSes in gdb.base/callfuncs.exp Mark Kettenis
2012-10-24 13:48 ` [testsuite commit] Fix -m32 results [Re: [PATCH] Remove some KPASSes in gdb.base/callfuncs.exp] Jan Kratochvil
2012-10-24 14:35 ` Mark Kettenis
2012-10-24 14:50 ` Jan Kratochvil
2012-10-24 15:05 ` Mark Kettenis
2012-10-24 16:19 ` Tom Tromey
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox