Re: [rfa] store.exp failures

[David Carlton <carlton@math.stanford.edu>]

On Fri, 06 Dec 2002 16:55:34 -0500, Andrew Cagney <ac131313@redhat.com> said:

> On a powerpc:

> Running /home/scratch/GDB/src/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/store.exp ...

>                  === gdb Summary ===

> # of expected passes            204

> ac131313@nettle$ gcc --version
> 2.95.3

> And on a Red Hat 7,2 system:

> Running /home/cagney/GDB/src/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/store.exp ...

>                  === gdb Summary ===

> # of expected passes            204

> cagney@torrens$ gcc --version
> 2.96

Yeah, 2.96 passes for me, too.  Who knows what's going on with
i686-gnu-linux 2.95.3, then.

> BTW, what makes you think the test is delicate?  The code is valid C
> and the command:

> 	(gdb) set variable u = s_1

> is valid in GDB's CLI.  If it doesn't work, its a bug.

Actually, I was misinterpreting the following comment at the top of
store.c:

/* Check that GDB can correctly update a value, living in a register,
   in the target.  This pretty much relies on the compiler taking heed
   of requests for values to be stored in registers.  */

But I suppose that, even if the compiler doesn't pay attention to
'register' requests, the tests should stil work fine, they just won't
test what they're supposed to.  So 'delicate' is definitely the wrong
word.

David Carlton
carlton@math.stanford.edu