From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7230 invoked by alias); 21 Mar 2012 11:37:19 -0000 Received: (qmail 7049 invoked by uid 22791); 21 Mar 2012 11:37:18 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from relay1.mentorg.com (HELO relay1.mentorg.com) (192.94.38.131) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 21 Mar 2012 11:37:03 +0000 Received: from nat-dem.mentorg.com ([195.212.93.2] helo=eu2-mail.mgc.mentorg.com) by relay1.mentorg.com with esmtp id 1SAJqf-0006U1-Vn from Thomas_Schwinge@mentor.com ; Wed, 21 Mar 2012 04:37:02 -0700 Received: from feldtkeller.schwinge.homeip.net ([172.30.64.78]) by eu2-mail.mgc.mentorg.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Wed, 21 Mar 2012 12:37:00 +0100 From: Thomas Schwinge To: Jan Kratochvil Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [testuite patch] Fix cross-arch .S testsuite files compatibility In-Reply-To: <20120316085158.GA26740@host2.jankratochvil.net> References: <20120314201849.GB1412@host2.jankratochvil.net> <87aa3ikzrs.fsf@schwinge.name> <20120315090602.GA7079@host2.jankratochvil.net> <8762e6ky5l.fsf@schwinge.name> <20120316085158.GA26740@host2.jankratochvil.net> User-Agent: Notmuch/0.9-101-g81dad07 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/23.3.1 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2012 11:37:00 -0000 Message-ID: <87pqc6fanj.fsf@schwinge.name> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" 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: 2012-03/txt/msg00776.txt.bz2 --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-length: 1378 Hi! On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 09:51:58 +0100, Jan Kratochvil wrote: > On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 10:32:06 +0100, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > > On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 10:06:02 +0100, Jan Kratochvil wrote: > > > On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 09:57:11 +0100, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > > > > Can there be other semantic differences between the two? > > >=20 > > > It is a good question and I am not aware of any such differences. > >=20 > > Hmm, I just had a quick look, and found that, for example, tc-arm.c has > > this: > >=20 > > #ifdef OBJ_ELF > > { "word", s_arm_elf_cons, 4 }, > > { "long", s_arm_elf_cons, 4 }, > >=20 > > ... and obj-elf.c: > >=20 > > {"4byte", cons, 4}, > >=20 > > Compared to cons, s_arm_elf_cons does quite a lot of things, for example > > handle mapping symbols (which cons doesn't do, I think?). >=20 > It does not seem to be needed for these testcases, they still PASS on: > armv7l-unknown-linux-gnueabihf > (I did not verify if they still FAIL->PASS by their specific fixes.) I still have some reservations about this patch, but I won't hold it up having now now tested that it doesn't change the test results for sh-linux-gnu cross-testing -- SH also differentiates between using sh_elf_cons for .long/.int/etc. vs. s_uacons for .2byte/.4byte/.8byte. Gr=C3=BC=C3=9Fe, Thomas --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-length: 489 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJPab1QAAoJENuKOtuXzphJypsH/3exlfIEvtaNZcd4rGnYkqOF GFRdsd1kaN45HCCRlQmtuUYA0g3irlrTn5ygr80Ow+LveD2EybGpg351phUA8Vhk 2yRuUnEwkdvUMo4hWOWHWlLKsF7QC5IrsqgPXgdSkCswg655oXfP7UEeJAiv1y7B xZ9dWlUN0va13mmR2YifJ04KLyNfpfF3L1JyR3GHUxCTEw/5Qm1QeH2Ae5oAsf5m v7jY6SoKZBh8p9FeXiiXGea+l91wzQzmNW5TsuAfJu5+zWB3nYKmAXQ+6goCdAoF naxD0/oHd9QZqqwGHKIXIthcwJd1NqCnoFLYG9s5qF7JocB/RLBBaZxqYGhabzc= =uFGn -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--