From: Andrew Cagney <cagney@gnu.org>
To: Paul Hilfinger <hilfingr@gnat.com>
Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: [RFA] Some testcases for long long bitfields
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 20:09:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4193C69E.9050403@gnu.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20041101113842.511BDF2B98@nile.gnat.com>
Here we go :-)
- which system was it tested on?
- loose this:
> +# Please email any bugs, comments, and/or additions to this file to:
> +# bug-gdb@prep.ai.mit.edu
- reword the tests from:
> "bitfield uniqueness (u1)"
to something like:
bitfield uniqueness; flags.u1 = 1
so that what's being tested is clearer and the names are unique.
- on similar lines, take the gdb.sum file from running this testand put
it through 'uniq -d' s.fixing any duplicate
- use gdb_test_multiple
> + # Determine if the target has signed bitfields so we can xfail the
> + # the signed bitfield tests if it doesn't.
> + set no_signed 1
> + send_gdb "print i\n"
> + gdb_expect {
> + -re ".* = -32768.*$gdb_prompt $" {
> + set no_signed 0
> + pass "determining signed-ness of bitfields"
> + }
- Why? Or is this really a known bug?
> + if $no_signed then {
> + setup_xfail "*-*-*"
> + }
> + set test "set long long signed bitfield negative"
> + gdb_test_multiple "print flags.s2 = -1" $test {
> + -re "warning: Value does not fit.*$gdb_prompt $" {
> + fail "$test"
> + gdb_suppress_tests
> + }
> + -re "= -1.*$gdb_prompt $" {
> + pass "$test"
> + }
> + }
- ditto?
> + if $no_signed then {
> + setup_xfail "*-*-*"
> + }
> + if [gdb_test "print flags" "u1 = 0, u2 = 4294967296, u3 = 0, s1 = 0, s2 = -1, s3 = 0.*" "long long bitfield values after set negative"] {
> + gdb_suppress_tests
> + }
> + gdb_stop_suppressing_tests;
> +}
> +bitfield_uniqueness
- delete this:
> +if [istarget "mips-idt-*"] then {
> + # Restart because IDT/SIM runs out of file descriptors.
> + gdb_exit
> + gdb_start
> + gdb_reinitialize_dir $srcdir/$subdir
> + gdb_load ${binfile}
> +}
- for all these:
+ if { ! [runto break5] } {
+ gdb_suppress_tests
+ }
perhaphs think about what I did for the sig*.exp tests - have main as a
loop so that it looped around after each test sequence was finished -
will on remote systems improve the performance somewhat. But what ever.
Once all this are addressed, post the update _along_ with the system
tested on, and then it can be committed.
Andrew
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-11-11 20:09 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-11-01 11:38 Paul Hilfinger
2004-11-11 20:09 ` Andrew Cagney [this message]
2004-11-11 20:32 ` Paul Hilfinger
2004-11-26 22:49 ` Paul Hilfinger
2004-11-28 17:34 ` Andrew Cagney
2004-11-29 9:22 ` Paul Hilfinger
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4193C69E.9050403@gnu.org \
--to=cagney@gnu.org \
--cc=gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com \
--cc=hilfingr@gnat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox