This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [rfa:testsuite} Overhaul sizeof.exp
- From: Andrew Cagney <ac131313 at cygnus dot com>
- To: Michael Elizabeth Chastain <mec at shout dot net>
- Cc: gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 09:57:13 -0500
- Subject: Re: [rfa:testsuite} Overhaul sizeof.exp
- References: <200202200456.g1K4uwX27098@duracef.shout.net>
> Hi Andrew,
>> Unfortunatly it doesn't address the x86 problem. Looking at
>> printcmd.c:print_scalar_formatted() the function behaves differently
>> when sizeof (host LONGEST) < sizeof (target type) (i.e. x86) :-( I
>> think this a very long standing bug.
>> The problem I guess is what to do short term with this part of the test.
> My opinion is that if a test finds a bug, it is a good test. A really
> great test causes the machine to reboot, catch on fire, and install
> Windows XP from a Russian warez mirror.
> Here is some policy from gcc:
Yes. I poked a finger in that pie recently by getting approval to
commit a test that demonstrated a regression! (Wswitch.c)
The XFAIL policy is different to GDB. GDB interprets XFAILs to mean not
supported due to something outside of GDB's control. Not this is a bug
but we're not fixing it at present.
Anyway, what we're looking at here isn't a regression - it is just wierd.
> I think this would be a good policy for gdb. What do you think?
> I will re-run my test bed on the new patch shortly.
> Michael C
I had a bit of a think. I'm going to change the test so that it avoids
the /d problem. I figure I'm trying to test GDB vs TARGET sizes, not
printf. I'll bug report the above problem.