From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16346 invoked by alias); 15 Aug 2002 18:31:25 -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 16286 invoked from network); 15 Aug 2002 18:31:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (216.138.202.10) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 15 Aug 2002 18:31:24 -0000 Received: from ges.redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 540333C82; Thu, 15 Aug 2002 14:31:22 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3D5BF37A.9040702@ges.redhat.com> Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 11:31:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:1.0.0) Gecko/20020810 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Michael Snyder Cc: Neil Booth , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [TESTSUITE] assert (char == signed char) References: <3D5AC6F4.8D119BF4@redhat.com> <20020814220650.GB12340@daikokuya.co.uk> <3D5AD966.83B6ADB@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-08/txt/msg00368.txt.bz2 > Neil Booth wrote: > >> >> Michael Snyder wrote:- >> > >> > There seem to be some tests in the testsuite that are >> > based on the assumption that chars are signed, and that >> > will fail if they are unsigned. That isn't correct. >> > Eg: >> > sizeof.exp: check valueof ((int) (char)) -1 == -1 >> > (prints 255 if char == unsigned) sizeof.exp's purpose in life is to check that GDB and the running program agree about the funamental points of life (such as the sizeof an int or the signof char). >> > pointers.exp: ptype pC >> > (outputs "unsigned char *" if char == unsigned) >> > >> > Any thoughts? Should these be regularized to accept unsigned? >> > Should it be based on a configure variable? > >> >> I'd pass -fsigned-char; that's done in some other tests. That would be silly :-) The failure strongly suggests that something is skewiff. > To gcc? Problem is, what if it isn't gcc? As eg. Irix cc? Michael, I think you might have a GDB bug. Andrew