This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [commit] ramp up store.exp
- From: Mark Kettenis <kettenis at chello dot nl>
- To: Andrew Cagney <ac131313 at redhat dot com>
- Cc: gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: 15 Jun 2003 13:18:10 +0200
- Subject: Re: [commit] ramp up store.exp
- References: <3EEB9CB6.4070001@redhat.com>
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