Mirror of the gdb-patches mailing list
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Andrew Burgess <aburgess@redhat.com>
To: Pedro Alves <pedro@palves.net>, gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] gdb.base/nodebug.exp: Add long double testing
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2026 22:14:40 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <87zezqd4cf.fsf@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260714220631.1499846-2-pedro@palves.net>

Pedro Alves <pedro@palves.net> writes:

> gdb.base/nodebug.exp is missing testing calling long double functions.
> This commit adds such tests.
>
> With a GDB that doesn't know that "long double" is 64-bit on
> x86_64-pc-windows-msvc, we get:
>
>  FAIL: gdb.base/nodebug.exp: p (long double) mult_long_double(2.0L, 3.0L)
>  FAIL: gdb.base/nodebug.exp: p ((long double (*) (long double, long double)) mult_long_double)(2.0L, 3.0L)
>  FAIL: gdb.base/nodebug.exp: p ((long double (*) (long double, long double)) mult_long_double)(2, 3)
>  FAIL: gdb.base/nodebug.exp: p ((long double (*) ()) mult_long_double_noproto)(2.0L, 3.0L)
>
> Passes cleanly on:
>
>  - x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
>  - x86_64-w64-mingw32
>  - x86_64-pc-windows-msvc, with the "long double" fix
>
> Change-Id: If9ee749187e1d30fedcba17ae12634f3bd90de2f
> ---
>  gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/nodebug.c   | 13 +++++++++++++
>  gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/nodebug.exp |  6 ++++++
>  2 files changed, 19 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/nodebug.c b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/nodebug.c
> index c7bc93991b8..275a9d6ff60 100644
> --- a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/nodebug.c
> +++ b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/nodebug.c
> @@ -72,6 +72,12 @@ mult (double v1, double v2)
>    return v1 * v2;
>  }
>  
> +long double
> +mult_long_double (long double v1, long double v2)
> +{
> +  return v1 * v2;
> +}
> +
>  double
>  mult_noproto (v1, v2)
>    double v1, v2;
> @@ -79,6 +85,13 @@ mult_noproto (v1, v2)
>    return v1 * v2;
>  }
>  
> +long double
> +mult_long_double_noproto (v1, v2)
> +  long double v1, v2;
> +{
> +  return v1 * v2;
> +}

Not that it really matters, but the ordering seems a bit weird, the
existing functions are all:

X
X_noproto
Y
Y_noproto
etc...

but you broke this pattern.  I only mention it because I have some
actual worthwhile points to raise below...

> +
>  uint8_t
>  add8 (uint8_t v1, uint8_t v2)
>  {
> diff --git a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/nodebug.exp b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/nodebug.exp
> index e4138a801da..1a16e86ed2c 100644
> --- a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/nodebug.exp
> +++ b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/nodebug.exp
> @@ -78,6 +78,12 @@ proc test_call_promotion {} {
>      gdb_test "p ((double (*) ()) mult_noproto)(2.0f, 3.0f)" " = 6"
>      gdb_test "p ((double (*) ()) mult_noproto)(2.0, 3.0)" " = 6"
>  
> +    # Same, but for long double.
> +    gdb_test "p (long double) mult_long_double(2.0L, 3.0L)" " = 6"
> +    gdb_test "p ((long double (*) (long double, long double)) mult_long_double)(2.0L, 3.0L)" " = 6"
> +    gdb_test "p ((long double (*) (long double, long double)) mult_long_double)(2, 3)" " = 6"
> +    gdb_test "p ((long double (*) ()) mult_long_double_noproto)(2.0L, 3.0L)" " = 6"

I noticed that the double test also includes a case which tests float to
double promotion, but that case is skipped here.  Wouldn't it be a good
idea to include both float to long double and double to long double
tests here too?

Thanks,
Andrew


> +
>      # Check that GDB promotes char->int correctly.
>      gdb_test "p /d (uint8) add8((uint8) 2, (uint8) 3)" " = 5"
>      gdb_test "p /d ((uint8 (*) (uint8, uint8)) add8)((uint8) 2, (uint8) 3)" " = 5"
> -- 
> 2.54.0


  reply	other threads:[~2026-07-16 21:15 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-07-14 22:06 [PATCH 0/4] gdb/testsuite: "long double" infcall tests Pedro Alves
2026-07-14 22:06 ` [PATCH 1/4] gdb.base/nodebug.exp: Add long double testing Pedro Alves
2026-07-16 21:14   ` Andrew Burgess [this message]
2026-07-17 13:59     ` Pedro Alves
2026-07-22 18:41       ` Andrew Burgess
2026-07-14 22:06 ` [PATCH 2/4] gdb.base/callfuncs.exp: Adjust for Windows Pedro Alves
2026-07-14 22:25   ` Pedro Alves
2026-07-16 21:26     ` Andrew Burgess
2026-07-17 14:27       ` Pedro Alves
2026-07-22 18:42         ` Andrew Burgess
2026-07-14 22:06 ` [PATCH 3/4] gdb.base/callfuncs.c: factor out float/double functions Pedro Alves
2026-07-16 21:33   ` Andrew Burgess
2026-07-14 22:06 ` [PATCH 4/4] gdb.base/callfuncs.exp: Exercise "long double" Pedro Alves
2026-07-16 21:36   ` Andrew Burgess
2026-07-22 13:01 ` [PATCH 0/4] gdb/testsuite: "long double" infcall tests Pedro Alves

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=87zezqd4cf.fsf@redhat.com \
    --to=aburgess@redhat.com \
    --cc=gdb-patches@sourceware.org \
    --cc=pedro@palves.net \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox