From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4585 invoked by alias); 29 Jan 2008 16:04:16 -0000 Received: (qmail 4509 invoked by uid 22791); 29 Jan 2008 16:04:15 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from smtp-out.google.com (HELO smtp-out.google.com) (216.239.45.13) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Tue, 29 Jan 2008 16:03:58 +0000 Received: from zps78.corp.google.com (zps78.corp.google.com [172.25.146.78]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id m0TG3sQI016390 for ; Tue, 29 Jan 2008 08:03:54 -0800 Received: from wa-out-1112.google.com (wahv27.prod.google.com [10.114.248.27]) by zps78.corp.google.com with ESMTP id m0TG3enN002998 for ; Tue, 29 Jan 2008 08:03:54 -0800 Received: by wa-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id v27so3555672wah.4 for ; Tue, 29 Jan 2008 08:03:54 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.140.169.6 with SMTP id r6mr4487140rve.210.1201622633920; Tue, 29 Jan 2008 08:03:53 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.141.186.16 with HTTP; Tue, 29 Jan 2008 08:03:53 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 16:16:00 -0000 From: "Doug Evans" To: "GDB Patches" , "Pierre Muller" Subject: Re: [BUG] BINOP_DIV and ptyp command In-Reply-To: <20080129134609.GB22342@caradoc.them.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <002301c85c12$a73a4640$f5aed2c0$@u-strasbg.fr> <20080129134609.GB22342@caradoc.them.org> X-IsSubscribed: yes 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: 2008-01/txt/msg00681.txt.bz2 On Jan 29, 2008 5:46 AM, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > On Mon, Jan 28, 2008 at 09:34:48PM -0800, Doug Evans wrote: > > On Jan 28, 2008 8:52 PM, Doug Evans wrote: > > > [...] > > > So it seems like the following is the correct patch. > > > > Well, not quite. Ok to check the appended patch in? > > > > Changing the expected result to long makes / and % no longer special - > > x*y has an expected result of long. > > > > One can argue it should be int, but any fix for that is orthogonal to > > fixing / and % handling. I think. > > If you had to change a testcase to a more wrong answer, then the bug > isn't orthogonal :-) We should be following C promotion rules, and > automatically promoting int math to long is incorrect. I can't tell if that's a fun comment for grin's sake or not. I can flip my pedantic bit and argue the same thing. Obviously "ptype int+int" is "int". In this particular case having to hack whatis-exp.exp to "pass" until the general bug is fixed is ok by me - is anyone relying on ptype 4/2 to be int whereas ptype 4*2 is long?