From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9744 invoked by alias); 25 Mar 2003 16:54:09 -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 9598 invoked from network); 25 Mar 2003 16:54:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (207.219.125.105) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 25 Mar 2003 16:54:08 -0000 Received: from redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD45B2B11; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 11:54:01 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3E8089A9.8070805@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 16:54:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20030223 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Corinna Vinschen Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] xstormy16-tdep.c: Set chars to unsigned References: <20030325161831.GF23762@cygbert.vinschen.de> <3E8083BD.90807@redhat.com> <20030325163554.GH23762@cygbert.vinschen.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2003-03/txt/msg00498.txt.bz2 > On Tue, Mar 25, 2003 at 11:28:45AM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote: > >> Does this also fix some sizeof.exp failures? That test is ment to check >> for this problem. > > > XStormy16 has no sizeof.exp FAILs. These tests: print/d (int) (char) -1 $11 = -1 (gdb) PASS: gdb.base/sizeof.exp: get value of (int) (char) -1 (-1) print/d (int) (signed char) -1 $12 = -1 (gdb) PASS: gdb.base/sizeof.exp: get value of (int) (signed char) -1 (-1) print/d (int) (unsigned char) -1 $13 = 255 (gdb) PASS: gdb.base/sizeof.exp: get value of (int) (unsigned char) -1 (255) next valueof ((int) (char) -1) == -1 118 printf ("valueof ((int) (signed char) -1) == %d\n", (int) (signed char) -1); (gdb) PASS: gdb.base/sizeof.exp: check valueof (int) (char) -1 == -1 next valueof ((int) (signed char) -1) == -1 119 printf ("valueof ((int) (unsigned char) -1) == %d\n", (int) (unsigned char) -1); (gdb) PASS: gdb.base/sizeof.exp: check valueof (int) (signed char) -1 == -1 next valueof ((int) (unsigned char) -1) == 255 121 return 0; (gdb) PASS: gdb.base/sizeof.exp: check valueof (int) (unsigned char) -1 == 255 are ment to ensure that GCC/target and GDB have a consistent idea the signness of a character. If GDB was getting char's sign wrong, but those tests were passing, then there is a bug in that test case. Can you please check this, and expand a little on exactly what the charsets.exp problem was. Andrew