From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stan Shebs To: phdm@macqel.be Cc: gdb-patches@cygnus.com, gdb@cygnus.com Subject: Re: testsuite/print_long_arg_list Date: Thu, 08 Apr 1999 15:41:00 -0000 Message-id: <199904082043.NAA29533@andros.cygnus.com> References: <199904071649.SAA28333@mail.macqel.be> X-SW-Source: 1999-04/msg00006.html Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 18:49:38 +0200 (CEST) From: "Philippe De Muyter" Running the testsuite with gdb-4.17.87 on m68k-motorola-sysv, I got (among others) the following failure : print_long_arg_list (a=22.219999999999998, b=33.332999999999998, c=0, d=-25, e=1 [...] Looking at the expected result, I see : gdb_expect { -re ".*print_long_arg_list \\(a=22.219999999999999, b=33.332999999999998 [...] For me, the differences are in the last digits of some float or double numbers. Isn't the test too strict ? I'm no floating-point expert, but I do know that you're supposed to be careful about ignoring the last digit. On the other hand, GDB just uses a printf %g to display float values, so the output is going to depend on the system's C library as much as GDB's correctness. In fact, "a" is actually 22.22 in the sources, so even the expected test result isn't what it should be. My inclination is to relax the match here. What does everybody else think? Stan >From jtc@redback.com Thu Apr 08 16:07:00 1999 From: jtc@redback.com (J.T. Conklin) To: gdb-patches@cygnus.com Cc: phdm@macqel.be, gdb@cygnus.com Subject: Re: testsuite/print_long_arg_list Date: Thu, 08 Apr 1999 16:07:00 -0000 Message-id: <5mg16aycjf.fsf@jtc.redbacknetworks.com> References: <199904082043.NAA29533@andros.cygnus.com> X-SW-Source: 1999-04/msg00007.html Content-length: 845 >>>>> "Stan" == Stan Shebs writes: Stan> I'm no floating-point expert, but I do know that you're supposed Stan> to be careful about ignoring the last digit. On the other hand, Stan> GDB just uses a printf %g to display float values, so the output Stan> is going to depend on the system's C library as much as GDB's Stan> correctness. In fact, "a" is actually 22.22 in the sources, so Stan> even the expected test result isn't what it should be. Stan> My inclination is to relax the match here. What does everybody Stan> else think? Isn't the problem that 22.22 cannot be represented exactly in binary floating point, thus is subject to various rounding issues in the least significant digits? Perhaps using values like 22.5, 22.25, 22.125, etc. would eliminate these problems. --jtc -- J.T. Conklin RedBack Networks >From shebs@cygnus.com Thu Apr 08 16:31:00 1999 From: Stan Shebs To: jtc@redback.com Cc: gdb-patches@cygnus.com, phdm@macqel.be, gdb@cygnus.com Subject: Re: testsuite/print_long_arg_list Date: Thu, 08 Apr 1999 16:31:00 -0000 Message-id: <199904082301.QAA29767@andros.cygnus.com> References: <5mg16aycjf.fsf@jtc.redbacknetworks.com> X-SW-Source: 1999-04/msg00008.html Content-length: 537 From: jtc@redback.com (J.T. Conklin) Date: 08 Apr 1999 15:26:12 -0700 Isn't the problem that 22.22 cannot be represented exactly in binary floating point, thus is subject to various rounding issues in the least significant digits? Perhaps using values like 22.5, 22.25, 22.125, etc. would eliminate these problems. Doh! I should've thought of that! Yes, that does give better results, and the author of those tests, who is on this list, says "change 'em however you want". So that's what will happen. Thanks! -s >From sandra18572@mci.net Fri Apr 09 02:39:00 1999 From: "sandra18572@mci.net" To: egcs@cygnus.com Subject: Hidden Showercam ;-) (147) Date: Fri, 09 Apr 1999 02:39:00 -0000 Message-id: <9673.89295@mx10.mindspring.com> X-SW-Source: 1999-04/msg00009.html Content-length: 198 Watch our hot horny girls in action via live webcam feeds! FREE PREVIEW - - - The best xxx to hit the net guaranteed! http://205.134.178.3/free_stuff/~girlie/index.html ********************* 3921 >From fortinj@ibm.net Fri Apr 09 09:25:00 1999 From: John Fortin To: gdb Subject: Windows threads, gdb, and cygwin Date: Fri, 09 Apr 1999 09:25:00 -0000 Message-id: <370E16B9.6EBB5294@ibm.net> X-SW-Source: 1999-04/msg00010.html Content-length: 545 All, I compiled the newest snapshot of gdb using cygwin ( after fighting with the configuration. Doesn't seem to work well recursively. ) Chris Faylor had indicated that win32 threads were now supported. When I executed gdb with a threaded program, 'info threads' returns nothing. Documentation I read indicates that this means thread functions are unavailable. Is win32 native threads supported? I am adding pthread functions to cygwin and would like to debug the resulting thread functions. Thanks, John Fortin fortinj@ibm.net From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stan Shebs To: phdm@macqel.be Cc: gdb-patches@cygnus.com, gdb@cygnus.com Subject: Re: testsuite/print_long_arg_list Date: Thu, 08 Apr 1999 13:44:00 -0000 Message-ID: <199904082043.NAA29533@andros.cygnus.com> References: <199904071649.SAA28333@mail.macqel.be> X-SW-Source: 1999-q2/msg00006.html Message-ID: <19990408134400.30hVwOxppNJKoqjyI92gp7JOZfBuTJvhI7fPT_VXZ9U@z> Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 18:49:38 +0200 (CEST) From: "Philippe De Muyter" Running the testsuite with gdb-4.17.87 on m68k-motorola-sysv, I got (among others) the following failure : print_long_arg_list (a=22.219999999999998, b=33.332999999999998, c=0, d=-25, e=1 [...] Looking at the expected result, I see : gdb_expect { -re ".*print_long_arg_list \\(a=22.219999999999999, b=33.332999999999998 [...] For me, the differences are in the last digits of some float or double numbers. Isn't the test too strict ? I'm no floating-point expert, but I do know that you're supposed to be careful about ignoring the last digit. On the other hand, GDB just uses a printf %g to display float values, so the output is going to depend on the system's C library as much as GDB's correctness. In fact, "a" is actually 22.22 in the sources, so even the expected test result isn't what it should be. My inclination is to relax the match here. What does everybody else think? Stan