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: RFC: Relax checking of garbage struct return values


> From: Jim Blandy <jimb@redhat.com>
> Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2005 10:44:29 -0700
> 
> The comments are supposed to have the story.  Tested on
> x86_64-pc-linux-gnu.
> 
> 2005-10-05  Jim Blandy  <jimb@redhat.com>
> 
> 	* gdb.base/structs.exp (any): New function.
> 	(test_struct_returns): Don't make any assumptions at all about
> 	what value the function returns when GDB can't set the return
> 	value.

I remember having a discussion about this with Andrew some time ago.
I believe Andrew argued that if the compiler doesn't pass L<n> as the
buffer, this should be considered a compiler bug.

Anyway, there is another case where things fail.  Some compilers use a
"static" buffer to store function values.  On those systems these
tests fail too.

I think your patch is ok: gdb is not a compiler testsuite.

Mark


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