This is the mail archive of the gdb-patches@sourceware.org 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: New FAIL gdb.base/float128.exp on ppc64le [Re: [RFC v2][2/2] Target FP: Make use of MPFR if available]

From: Jan Kratochvil <jan dot kratochvil at redhat dot com>
To: Ulrich Weigand <uweigand at de dot ibm dot com>
Cc: gdb-patches at sourceware dot org, Sergio Durigan Junior <sergiodj at redhat dot com>
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2018 14:50:31 +0200
Subject: Re: New FAIL gdb.base/float128.exp on ppc64le [Re: [RFC v2][2/2] Target FP: Make use of MPFR if available]
References: <20180620085525.GA2001322@host1.jankratochvil.net> <20180620123330.A6938D80294@oc3748833570.ibm.com>

On Wed, 20 Jun 2018 14:33:30 +0200, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
> A result of "inf" instead of the large number is exactly the problem that
> is fixed by using MPFR.  So I'm wondering: is the GDB that shows the FAIL
> actually built against MPFR?  If at build time MPFR was not detected,
> then this failure is exactly what you'd expect ...

Thanks for the heads up, our GDB build was really missing this dependency.

Still maybe the testcase should contain such explanation of the FAIL.
Moreover maybe it could be an XFAIL.

Thanks,
Jan

Follow-Ups:
- Re: New FAIL gdb.base/float128.exp on ppc64le [Re: [RFC v2][2/2] Target FP: Make use of MPFR if available]
  - From: Ulrich Weigand

References:
- New FAIL gdb.base/float128.exp on ppc64le [Re: [RFC v2][2/2] Target FP: Make use of MPFR if available]
  - From: Jan Kratochvil
- Re: New FAIL gdb.base/float128.exp on ppc64le [Re: [RFC v2][2/2] Target FP: Make use of MPFR if available]
  - From: Ulrich Weigand

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