From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15718 invoked by alias); 4 Dec 2003 17:44:35 -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 15659 invoked from network); 4 Dec 2003 17:44:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (207.219.125.105) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 4 Dec 2003 17:44:33 -0000 Received: from redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BFB42B8F; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 12:44:31 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3FCF727F.6030807@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2003 17:44:00 -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: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, "J. Johnston" Subject: [patch/rfc] more structs.exp kfails Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------040700090809060106030601" X-SW-Source: 2003-12/txt/msg00119.txt.bz2 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------040700090809060106030601 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-length: 363 The attatched tweaks structs.exp so that it KFAILs the case where a "return struct" fails because the target hasn't implemented the relevant code. Jeff and I were puzzling over an apparent regression in the ia64 - this better clasifies it as something that is known to have never worked. So, jeff, if it works for you, I'll commit it in a day or so, Andrew --------------040700090809060106030601 Content-Type: text/plain; name="diffs" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="diffs" Content-length: 1760 2003-12-04 Andrew Cagney * gdb.base/structs.exp (test_struct_returns): When applicable, set "return_value_unimplemented". When an unimplemented struct return architecture, report incorrect values as a KFAIL Index: testsuite/gdb.base/structs.exp =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/structs.exp,v retrieving revision 1.12 diff -u -r1.12 structs.exp --- testsuite/gdb.base/structs.exp 27 Nov 2003 20:40:52 -0000 1.12 +++ testsuite/gdb.base/structs.exp 4 Dec 2003 16:07:14 -0000 @@ -299,6 +299,7 @@ set test "return foo; ${tests}" set return_value_unknown 0 + set return_value_unimplemented 0 gdb_test_multiple "return foo${n}" "${test}" { -re "The location" { # Ulgh, a struct return, remember this (still need prompt). @@ -307,10 +308,10 @@ } -re "A structure or union" { # Ulgh, a struct return, remember this (still need prompt). - # Set it to something unique so that it won't match a - # struct return convention value. - # set return_value_unknown -1 set return_value_unknown 1 + # Double ulgh. Architecture doesn't use return_value and + # hence hasn't implemented small structure return. + set return_value_unimplemented 1 exp_continue } -re "Make fun${n} return now.*y or n. $" { @@ -353,6 +354,15 @@ # This contradicts the above claim that GDB knew # the location of the return-value. fail "${test}" + } + } + -re ".*${gdb_prompt} $" { + if $return_value_unimplemented { + # What a suprize. The architecture hasn't implemented + # return_value, and hence has to fail. + kfail "$test" gdb/1444 + } else { + fail "$test" } } } --------------040700090809060106030601--