From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4260 invoked by alias); 7 Dec 2002 01:33:22 -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 4253 invoked from network); 7 Dec 2002 01:33:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO jackfruit.Stanford.EDU) (171.64.38.136) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 7 Dec 2002 01:33:21 -0000 Received: (from carlton@localhost) by jackfruit.Stanford.EDU (8.11.6/8.11.6) id gB71XDh06850; Fri, 6 Dec 2002 17:33:13 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: jackfruit.Stanford.EDU: carlton set sender to carlton@math.stanford.edu using -f To: Andrew Cagney Cc: Fernando Nasser , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, Daniel Jacobowitz Subject: Re: [rfa] store.exp failures References: <3DEFEC76.6040109@redhat.com> <3DF0FC7C.6050209@redhat.com> <3DF11CD6.8010407@redhat.com> From: David Carlton Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2002 19:32:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <3DF11CD6.8010407@redhat.com> Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.4 (Common Lisp) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2002-12/txt/msg00241.txt.bz2 On Fri, 06 Dec 2002 16:55:34 -0500, Andrew Cagney 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