From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31553 invoked by alias); 6 Nov 2003 18:49:26 -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 31536 invoked from network); 6 Nov 2003 18:49:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (207.219.125.105) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 6 Nov 2003 18:49:21 -0000 Received: from redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC95C2B8F; Thu, 6 Nov 2003 13:49:16 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3FAA97AC.9020704@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2003 18:49:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20030820 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Michael Elizabeth Chastain Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [patch/rfc] Rewrite "structs" testcase References: <200311061733.hA6HXSWA004161@duracef.shout.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2003-11/txt/msg00091.txt.bz2 > I'm concerned about the use of "long long" in a test program. > What if someone uses a non-gcc Ansi C compiler? > But this doesn't look any worse than other tests, so okay. > > In structs.exp, line 22: > > # This file was written by Jeff Law. (law@cygnus.com) > > Add something like: > > # And rewritten by Andrew Cagney (cagney@redhat.com) I'll just drop that. > I got a lot of FAILS with the new tests. > native i686-pc-linux-gnu, gdb HEAD, binutils 2.14. > > PASS FAIL > gcc 2.95.3 -gdwarf-2 1086 138 > gcc 2.95.3 -gstabs+ 1122 102 > gcc 3.3.2 -gdwarf-2 1122 102 > gcc 3.3.2 -gstabs+ 1122 102 > > I have put up a tarball: > > ftp://ftp.shout.net/pub/users/mec/gdb/2003-11-06-2.tar.gz > > There are a lot of duplicate test names too. It would be good > to uniquify them. Yes, working on it. I can't see a way to fix things like "run_to_main" though. > Not proofread yet because of so many FAIL results. Looks like two problems: (gdb) ptype foo1.a type = tld (gdb) FAIL: gdb.base/structs.exp: ptype foo1.a for 1tld Some debug info prints "long double", some prints "tld". I've changed whats printed to hopefully be something more robust ... (gdb) FAIL: gdb.base/structs.exp: ptype foo1.a for 1tld p/c fun1() $1 = {a = 0x08044004c400000000000000} Seems GDB and GCC disagree over how the i386 returns floating-point values. My "this will always work" test has found a bug in GDB - cool. Note that the tests do all pass for PPC. I've also trimmed back the number of tests so that they are more focused. I'll post a revision later today. thanks, Andrew