From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21228 invoked by alias); 28 Nov 2004 17:34:58 -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 21217 invoked from network); 28 Nov 2004 17:34:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 28 Nov 2004 17:34:55 -0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id iASHYoQv021711 for ; Sun, 28 Nov 2004 12:34:50 -0500 Received: from localhost.redhat.com (vpn50-27.rdu.redhat.com [172.16.50.27]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id iASHYnr11236; Sun, 28 Nov 2004 12:34:49 -0500 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D4A9129D8C; Sun, 28 Nov 2004 12:34:04 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <41AA0C0B.4040407@gnu.org> Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2004 17:34:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.8 (X11/20041020) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Paul Hilfinger Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA] Some testcases for long long bitfields References: <20041101113842.511BDF2B98@nile.gnat.com> <4193C69E.9050403@gnu.org> <20041126224912.5BFCF9648@nile.gnat.com> In-Reply-To: <20041126224912.5BFCF9648@nile.gnat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2004-11/txt/msg00486.txt.bz2 Paul Hilfinger wrote: > I believe that the following revision of the bitfields2 test (for > bitfields in long long fields) addresses Andrew's comments. I have > tested it on i686 GNU/Linux with GCC 3.2.3. OK? > > Some specifics: > > >>- 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" >>>+ } >>>+ } > > > Well, this is what bitfields does, which is what I used as a model. On > reflection, however, it seems to me that XFAIL is inappropriate, since if > there is a failure here, it is most likely due to the fact the compiler > being used does not support signed bitfields---that is, a compiler for > which !defined(__STDC__) && !defined(__cplusplus) and which interprets > bitfields as unsigned. So it seems that the tests ought to be considered > unsupported instead, and I have made that change. But that merely changes > your question to "ARE there any compilers we need worry about with this > property". I have no idea, but other testcases seem to be written as if > there are. True, ok. >>- 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} >>+} > > > Done. I observe, by the way, that this same code appears in several > existing tests: bitfields, funcargs, opaque, scope. > > >>perhaps 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. > > > OK. I have made a variant of this change that does not use GDB to modify the > control flow of the program. Thanks! Ok for commit. Andrew