Re: [rfa:testsuite} Overhaul sizeof.exp

[Andrew Cagney <ac131313@cygnus.com>]

> Hi Andrew,
> 
> 
>> Unfortunatly it doesn't address the x86 problem.  Looking at 
>> printcmd.c:print_scalar_formatted() the function behaves differently 
>> when sizeof (host LONGEST) < sizeof (target type) (i.e. x86) :-(  I 
>> think this a very long standing bug.
>> 
>> The problem I guess is what to do short term with this part of the test.
> 
> 
> My opinion is that if a test finds a bug, it is a good test.  A really
> great test causes the machine to reboot, catch on fire, and install
> Windows XP from a Russian warez mirror.
> 
> Here is some policy from gcc:
> 
>   http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html#manage

Yes.  I poked a finger in that pie recently by getting approval to 
commit a test that demonstrated a regression! (Wswitch.c)

The XFAIL policy is different to GDB.  GDB interprets XFAILs to mean not 
supported due to something outside of GDB's control.  Not this is a bug 
but we're not fixing it at present.

Anyway, what we're looking at here isn't a regression - it is just wierd.

> I think this would be a good policy for gdb.  What do you think?
> 
> I will re-run my test bed on the new patch shortly.
> 
> Michael C

I had a bit of a think.   I'm going to change the test so that it avoids 
the /d problem.  I figure I'm trying to test GDB vs TARGET sizes, not 
printf.  I'll bug report the above problem.

Patch shortly.

Andrew