Re: [rfa:testsuite} Overhaul sizeof.exp

Andrew Cagney
2002-02-20T14:57:27Z

> 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