This is the mail archive of the gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the GDB project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [commit] ramp up store.exp


Andrew Cagney <ac131313@redhat.com> writes:

> Hello,
> 
> The attached ramps up the store.exp test by encouraging the compiler to 
> use more registers.

[snip]

> However, for the i386, I see:
> 
> > FAIL: gdb.base/store.exp: print old r - longest
> > FAIL: gdb.base/store.exp: print old r - double
> > FAIL: gdb.base/store.exp: print old r - doublest
> > FAIL: gdb.base/store.exp: up print old r - int
> > FAIL: gdb.base/store.exp: up print old r - long
> > FAIL: gdb.base/store.exp: up print old r - longest
> > FAIL: gdb.base/store.exp: up print old r - double
> > FAIL: gdb.base/store.exp: up print old r - doublest
> 
> (outch) before, and:
> 
> FAIL: gdb.base/store.exp: print old r - doublest

So I should handle values stored in more than two registers after all.
I'll fix this.

> FAIL: gdb.base/store.exp: up print old r - int
> FAIL: gdb.base/store.exp: up print old r - long
> FAIL: gdb.base/store.exp: up print old r - longest
> FAIL: gdb.base/store.exp: up print old r - doublest

I get a variation on these.  The variables in question are "optimized
out".  I wonder whether this is related to our earlier discussion
about unsaved registers or that the variables are really optimized
out.

Mark


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]