From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23022 invoked by alias); 15 Jun 2003 11:18:22 -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 22887 invoked from network); 15 Jun 2003 11:18:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO walton.kettenis.dyndns.org) (62.163.169.212) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 15 Jun 2003 11:18:19 -0000 Received: from elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org (elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org [192.168.0.2]) by walton.kettenis.dyndns.org (8.12.6p2/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h5FBIBlt000413; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 13:18:11 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from kettenis@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org) Received: from elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org (8.12.6p2/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h5FBIBTi047976; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 13:18:11 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from kettenis@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org) Received: (from kettenis@localhost) by elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org (8.12.6p2/8.12.6/Submit) id h5FBIAgq047973; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 13:18:10 +0200 (CEST) To: Andrew Cagney Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [commit] ramp up store.exp References: <3EEB9CB6.4070001@redhat.com> From: Mark Kettenis Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2003 11:18:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: Andrew Cagney's message of "Sat, 14 Jun 2003 18:07:50 -0400" Message-ID: <86smqbh9n1.fsf@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org> X-SW-Source: 2003-06/txt/msg00508.txt.bz2 Andrew Cagney writes: > Hello, > > The attached ramps up the store.exp test by encouraging the compiler to > use more registers. [snip] > However, for the i386, I see: > > > FAIL: gdb.base/store.exp: print old r - longest > > FAIL: gdb.base/store.exp: print old r - double > > FAIL: gdb.base/store.exp: print old r - doublest > > FAIL: gdb.base/store.exp: up print old r - int > > FAIL: gdb.base/store.exp: up print old r - long > > FAIL: gdb.base/store.exp: up print old r - longest > > FAIL: gdb.base/store.exp: up print old r - double > > FAIL: gdb.base/store.exp: up print old r - doublest > > (outch) before, and: > > FAIL: gdb.base/store.exp: print old r - doublest So I should handle values stored in more than two registers after all. I'll fix this. > FAIL: gdb.base/store.exp: up print old r - int > FAIL: gdb.base/store.exp: up print old r - long > FAIL: gdb.base/store.exp: up print old r - longest > FAIL: gdb.base/store.exp: up print old r - doublest I get a variation on these. The variables in question are "optimized out". I wonder whether this is related to our earlier discussion about unsaved registers or that the variables are really optimized out. Mark