From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca by simark.ca with LMTP id UXg1ClE5019nXAAAWB0awg (envelope-from ) for ; Fri, 11 Dec 2020 04:18:09 -0500 Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id 1D5491E552; Fri, 11 Dec 2020 04:18:09 -0500 (EST) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on simark.ca X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.2 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RDNS_NONE,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from sourceware.org (unknown [8.43.85.97]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9EAD41E552 for ; Fri, 11 Dec 2020 04:18:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD34D3836C7C; Fri, 11 Dec 2020 09:18:07 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org CD34D3836C7C DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org; s=default; t=1607678287; bh=xDI7vRiz6WYA+pwyB2j92Q7X8cI6RCrOQxOEs3ac0u0=; h=Date:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe:From:Reply-To:Cc: From; b=BSx5RxUK2qTd1OK1NPu4uFfw/PH17AGXgtyqoLlHGCN3S66DcF/+fKPbBq6KexRef o3lBMxO8jStSGNuhQwUhKi6klsfS2LfF9J6WseApXrxiZAPz6xnCXxCF+IIX4Fr59V 4ZfE34ler/ESsfGaE+qh3xHfdSLq04KiEZayjF6k= Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com [148.163.156.1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F1F0E3836C7C for ; Fri, 11 Dec 2020 09:18:04 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org F1F0E3836C7C Received: from pps.filterd (m0187473.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 0BB93TOQ056791; Fri, 11 Dec 2020 04:18:04 -0500 Received: from pps.reinject (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 35c4v8hvrh-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 11 Dec 2020 04:18:03 -0500 Received: from m0187473.ppops.net (m0187473.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by pps.reinject (8.16.0.36/8.16.0.36) with SMTP id 0BB94D8F058383; Fri, 11 Dec 2020 04:18:03 -0500 Received: from ppma06fra.de.ibm.com (48.49.7a9f.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [159.122.73.72]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 35c4v8hvq1-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 11 Dec 2020 04:18:03 -0500 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma06fra.de.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma06fra.de.ibm.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 0BB9BkP8025234; Fri, 11 Dec 2020 09:17:59 GMT Received: from b06avi18878370.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (b06avi18878370.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.26.194]) by ppma06fra.de.ibm.com with ESMTP id 3581fhkhnd-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 11 Dec 2020 09:17:59 +0000 Received: from d06av26.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av26.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.62]) by b06avi18878370.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 0BB9Hv2u57082334 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 11 Dec 2020 09:17:57 GMT Received: from d06av26.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id EED78AE04D; Fri, 11 Dec 2020 09:17:56 +0000 (GMT) Received: from d06av26.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA7C7AE045; Fri, 11 Dec 2020 09:17:56 +0000 (GMT) Received: from oc3748833570.ibm.com (unknown [9.145.57.66]) by d06av26.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Fri, 11 Dec 2020 09:17:56 +0000 (GMT) Received: by oc3748833570.ibm.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 4D203D8030D; Fri, 11 Dec 2020 10:17:56 +0100 (CET) Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2020 10:17:56 +0100 To: Tom de Vries Subject: Re: [PATCH][gdb/testsuite] Fix gdb.base/float128.exp with --with-mpfr=no Message-ID: <20201211091756.GA10227@oc3748833570.ibm.com> References: <20201210125334.GA1267@delia> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20201210125334.GA1267@delia> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.343, 18.0.737 definitions=2020-12-11_01:2020-12-09, 2020-12-11 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 lowpriorityscore=0 malwarescore=0 bulkscore=0 mlxlogscore=995 phishscore=0 impostorscore=0 suspectscore=0 mlxscore=0 adultscore=0 clxscore=1011 priorityscore=1501 spamscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2009150000 definitions=main-2012110056 X-BeenThere: gdb-patches@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , From: Ulrich Weigand via Gdb-patches Reply-To: Ulrich Weigand Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Errors-To: gdb-patches-bounces@sourceware.org Sender: "Gdb-patches" On Thu, Dec 10, 2020 at 01:53:35PM +0100, Tom de Vries wrote: > When configuring gdb using --with-mpfr=no and running test-case > gdb.base/float128.exp, we run into: > ... > FAIL: gdb.base/float128.exp: print large128 (GDB may be missing MPFR support!) > ... > > Fix this by detecting that gdb was build without mpfr using the show > configuration command, and changing the FAIL into UNSUPPORTED. That part looks OK to me, but ... > + if { $mpfr_supported == 0 } { > + if { [istarget "s390*-*-*"] || [istarget "powerpc*-*-*"] } { > + # Some of these archs have native 128-bit float support, in > + # which case this should be passing, even without MPFR support. > + fail $test > + } else { > + unsupported "$test (Missing MPFR support)" > + } ... the istarget check isn't quite right - if we want a check like that, it needs to check whether the *host* platform GDB is running on supports native 128-bit floats; the istarget check tests the target architecture (which will be different when testing a cross-debugging scenario). But I'm not sure we really need that check, I'd be fine with just always returning unsupported here when GDB is compiled explicitly without MPFR support (and the test fails). Bye, Ulrich -- Dr. Ulrich Weigand GNU/Linux compilers and toolchain Ulrich.Weigand@de.ibm.com