From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6602 invoked by alias); 3 Mar 2005 05:32:03 -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 5789 invoked from network); 3 Mar 2005 05:31:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO e34.co.us.ibm.com) (32.97.110.132) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 3 Mar 2005 05:31:48 -0000 Received: from westrelay03.boulder.ibm.com (westrelay03.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.12]) by e34.co.us.ibm.com (8.12.10/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j235VmMN372698 for ; Thu, 3 Mar 2005 00:31:48 -0500 Received: from d03av03.boulder.ibm.com (d03av03.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.169]) by westrelay03.boulder.ibm.com (8.12.10/NCO/VER6.6) with ESMTP id j235VmKW142356 for ; Wed, 2 Mar 2005 22:31:48 -0700 Received: from d03av03.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d03av03.boulder.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j235VlAc018104 for ; Wed, 2 Mar 2005 22:31:47 -0700 Received: from austin.ibm.com (netmail2.austin.ibm.com [9.41.248.176]) by d03av03.boulder.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j235VljJ018098; Wed, 2 Mar 2005 22:31:47 -0700 Received: from lazy.austin.ibm.com (lazy.austin.ibm.com [9.53.94.97]) by austin.ibm.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id j235VlRZ044304; Wed, 2 Mar 2005 23:31:47 -0600 Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2005 05:32:00 -0000 From: Manoj Iyer X-X-Sender: manjo@lazy To: Daniel Jacobowitz cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFC] gdb.base/float.exp and gdb.base/commands.exp patch In-Reply-To: <20050303002718.GA4915@nevyn.them.org> Message-ID: References: <20050303002718.GA4915@nevyn.them.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-SW-Source: 2005-03/txt/msg00024.txt.bz2 > What compiler are you testing with? I am using GCC (gcc version 3.4.3 20041212 (Red Hat 3.4.3-9.EL4)) > On what line is it reporting that > it has left the block? I'd like to understand the difference before we > change this. I believe the line number is 82 in my case, and the testcase had 57. Ok here is the piece of output... --------------- paste ------------- Continuing.^M Watchpoint 11: local_var^M ^M Old value = 0^M New value = 1^M factorial (value=1) at ./gdb.base/run.c:81^M 81 return (value);^M $38 = 1^M ^M Watchpoint 11 deleted because the program has left the block in^M which its expression is valid.^M 0x0000000010000604 in factorial (value=511) at ./gdb.base/run.c:82^M 82 }^M $39 = 511^M 1^M ^M Program exited normally.^M (gdb) FAIL: gdb.base/commands.exp: continue with watch ------------- end paste ------------------------- > What about PowerPC targets which don't have an FPU? Hmm, it looks like > GDB more or less assumes the FP is present. Not sure about SPE though. > Yes I did think about ppc nofpu system, I believe they are mostly used in embedded devices, but I could be wrong. So what is the probability of coming accross one that someone will run this test on? But there should be a check in the testcase to invalidate the testcase if floating point is not present.(skip the test for no-fpu) Also, fileio.exp does some permission checks, ie read/write to a file which has no read/write permissions, but if you run as root the test will fail. There should be some mechanism by which the testcases should check if user id is root, if it is temporarily become another user like "nobody" or something like that. Couple of tests failed because of this, but I dont know how to handle this. -- Manjo