From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29466 invoked by alias); 9 May 2011 02:24:13 -0000 Received: (qmail 29456 invoked by uid 22791); 9 May 2011 02:24:12 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (38.113.113.100) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 09 May 2011 02:23:58 +0000 Received: (qmail 32469 invoked from network); 9 May 2011 02:23:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?192.168.0.102?) (yao@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 9 May 2011 02:23:57 -0000 Message-ID: <4DC75036.4040806@codesourcery.com> Date: Mon, 09 May 2011 02:24:00 -0000 From: Yao Qi User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.14) Gecko/20110223 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.8 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Joseph S. Myers" CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [patch, testsuite] Tests to _Complex type References: <4DC401D0.1050500@codesourcery.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2011-05/txt/msg00213.txt.bz2 On 05/06/2011 10:33 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote: > It would be good to include a much wider range of tests. structs and > unions containing complex values (and arrays of complex values, and > complex values mixed with real ones, etc.), complex values in many > different argument positions, and after integer arguments as well as > floating-point ones, all three types _Complex float, _Complex double, > _Complex long double properly covered in these ways. For structs and > unions and arrays therein, the sort of case you want to cover includes the > ARM (VFP ABI) and IA64 rules on homogeneous aggregates. Yes, I agree. After go through gdb testsuite, we may do several tests for _Complex in these following areas, 1. pass and return _Complex type and _Complex type in aggregate type in function call, like funcargs.exp and callfuncs.exp. 2. vararg for _Complex type and _Complex type in aggregate type, like varargs.exp 3. _Complex type in struct, like struct.exp. GDB maintainers, Shall we propagate _Complex related tests to each *.exp file, such as funcargs.exp/callfuncs.exp/varargs.exp/struct.arg? or keep all _Complex tests in a single exp file complex.exp? I prefer the former one, but I am afraid this will break some platforms which don't support _Complex. Thoughts? -- Yao (齐尧)