Re: review request: implementing DW_AT_endianity

[Peeter Joot <peeter.joot@lzlabs.com>]

> I suggest naming this function type_byte_order.  Functions named "gdbarch_*" are usually

> those part of the gdbarch interface (defined in gdbarch.sh/.h/.c).


done.

> Nice.  Assginment of fields by GDB would be a good thing to check in the test.

done.

> Ah indeed.  Do you report the gcc bugs you find to them?

I will verify first on the dev version of gcc8 that this is still an issue before submitting a report.

> testsuite.

It is normal to see the number of tests vary when running the test suite (make check -j8)?  My before and after runs had an unexpected difference in the numbers of tests:

                === gdb Summary ===



-# of expected passes           40087

-# of unexpected failures       96

+# of expected passes           40082

+# of unexpected failures       98

 # of unexpected successes      1

 # of expected failures         67

 # of unknown successes         3


My test added 4 additional expected passes (and I verified that my new tests ran in gdb/testsuite/gdb.log), so the number of expected successes should have grown by 4, not decreased by 5?  Some of the failures differences look like buggy tests (outputting pids and so forth).

I clearly didn't regress anything significant, but didn't expect the baseline to vary run to run.

Peeter