From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10316 invoked by alias); 20 May 2002 13:57:00 -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 10277 invoked from network); 20 May 2002 13:56:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO dair.pair.com) (209.68.1.49) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 20 May 2002 13:56:57 -0000 Received: (qmail 34649 invoked by uid 20157); 20 May 2002 13:56:57 -0000 Received: from localhost (sendmail-bs@127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 20 May 2002 13:56:57 -0000 Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 06:57:00 -0000 From: Hans-Peter Nilsson X-Sender: To: Joern Rennecke cc: Alexandre Oliva , Elena Zannoni , , , Nick Clifton , Subject: Re: print_insn_sh cleanup In-Reply-To: <3CE8FA6C.2B7B54CC@superh.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-SW-Source: 2002-05/txt/msg00815.txt.bz2 On Mon, 20 May 2002, Joern Rennecke wrote: > Alexandre Oliva wrote: > > Did you run check in binutils too? It's badly hosed at the moment; > > all SH64 tests in a sh64-elf build with --target_board=sh-hms-sim fail > > because the disassembler is printing SHmedia instructions as if they > > were SHcompact. > > I get expected passes: 25 and untested testcases: 7. Those numbers seems like you interpreted binutils as binutils, :-) not "a build tree for binutils, including subpackages gas, binutils and ld". BTW, I think you can ignore the test option RUNTESTFLAGS=--target_board=sh-hms-sim option in this case, if it confuses you. brgds, H-P