From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11036 invoked by alias); 20 Feb 2002 14:57:27 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 10836 invoked from network); 20 Feb 2002 14:57:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (24.112.135.44) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 20 Feb 2002 14:57:18 -0000 Received: from cygnus.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F8C53D12; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 09:57:14 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3C73B949.90209@cygnus.com> Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 06:57:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:0.9.8) Gecko/20020210 X-Accept-Language: en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Michael Elizabeth Chastain Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [rfa:testsuite} Overhaul sizeof.exp References: <200202200456.g1K4uwX27098@duracef.shout.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-02/txt/msg00531.txt.bz2 > 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