Re: [PATCH 2/3] Implement real literal extension for Ada

Tom Tromey via Gdb-patches
2022-03-18T18:06:06Z

>>>>> "Luis" == Luis Machado <luis.machado@arm.com> writes:

Luis> I think the floating point representations may differ between
Luis> architectures/bit-sizes.

Luis> I noticed 5 failures in this test for aarch64-linux and arm-linux.

This is interesting, because internally we have a rewrite of this same
test, and it seems fine on aarch64-linux.

Luis> FAIL: gdb.ada/float-bits.exp: print 16llf#7FFFF7FF4054A56FA5B99019A5C8#
Luis> FAIL: gdb.ada/float-bits.exp: print val_long_double
Luis> FAIL: gdb.ada/float-bits.exp: print val_long_double :=
Luis> 16llf#7FFFF7FF4054A56FA5B99019A5C8#
Luis> FAIL: gdb.ada/float-bits.exp: print val_long_double after assignment
Luis> FAIL: gdb.ada/float-bits.exp: print

Luis> Some of the expected values don't really match. If the output is
Luis> supposed to differ, maybe we should compare hex values instead?

I'm curious what is show by 'print/x' of the various values in there.

Luis> Also, for 32-bit targets, I'm seeing size-related issues.

We're also doing testing on ARM and that seems fine.

I did disable some of these internally for some targets, ones with
"weird" floating point.

Anyway, it seems like we could change the test to verify that the size
of each floating point type is what's expected before proceeding. But
I'd like to understand the above a bit better, first.

thanks,
Tom