Re: [PATCH] Adjust `pc-fp.exp' for ppc64/s390x (PR 12659)

[Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com>]

On 07/31/2012 10:25 PM, Sergio Durigan Junior wrote:
> While regtesting 7.4 against 7.5 branch on ppc64/s390x RHEL 6.3, I
> noticed this failure.  The patch which introduced this failure was
> committed because of:
> 
>       http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12659
> 
> On x86*, the output of `info register pc fp' is:
> 
>     info register pc fp
>     pc: 0x400520
>     fp: 0x7fffffffc490
>     (gdb) PASS: gdb.base/pc-fp.exp: info register pc fp
> 
> On ppc64/s390x, it is:
> 
>     info register pc fp
>     pc             0x10000658       0x10000658 <main+20>
>     fp: 0xfffffffd120
>     (gdb) FAIL: gdb.base/pc-fp.exp: info register pc fp
> 
> Since this difference in the output does not seem to be an error itself,
> the patch below just adjusts the testcase to match this kind of output
> as well.  It does not fail on x86*.

Why is the output format different?  It looks like consistency here would be good.

On 07/31/2012 10:25 PM, Sergio Durigan Junior wrote:> --- src.orig/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/pc-fp.exp
> +++ src/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/pc-fp.exp
> @@ -66,4 +66,4 @@ gdb_test "info register \$fp" "${valueof
>  # Regression test for
>  # http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12659
>  gdb_test "info register pc fp" \
> -    "pc: ${valueof_pc}\[\r\n\]+fp: ${valueof_fp}\[\r\n\]+"
> +    "pc(:)?.*${valueof_pc}(.*${hex} <.*>)?\[\r\n\]+fp: ${valueof_fp}\[\r\n\]+"

Relaxing the output like that means that inadvertent changes to x86's
or ppc/s390x output might go unnoticed.  It's best to have

  if [istarget xxx]
     one way
  elseif [istarget yyy]
     another way

etc. checks in these cases.

-- 
Pedro Alves