Re: [PATCH] Fix gdb.base/code_elim.exp failures for PowerPC 32-bit

[Samuel Bronson <naesten at gmail dot com>]

Luis Machado <lgustavo@codesourcery.com> writes:

> For PowerPC 32-bit though, the small initialized global int variable
> is sent to the .sdata section as an optimization. Since there is no
> more data to store, the .data section doesn't get created.
>
> GDB complains about the lack of such a section and expect doesn't like
> seeing that warning, which results in a couple failures for powerpc.

Hmm, seems like a silly thing to complain about ...

> One of them:
>
> [snip]
> add-symbol-file gdb.base/code_elim2 0x200000 -s .data 0x210000 -s .bss 0x220000^M
> add symbol table from file "gdb.d/gdb.base/code_elim2" at^M
>         .text_addr = 0x200000^M
>         .data_addr = 0x210000^M
>         .bss_addr = 0x220000^M
> (y or n) y^M
> Reading symbols from gdb.base/code_elim2...warning: section .data not
> found in gdb.base/code_elim2^M
> done.^M
> (gdb) FAIL: gdb.base/code_elim.exp: order1: add-symbol-file code_elim2
> 0x200000
>
> I have tweaked the testcase sources a little to hold a bigger
> initialized global variable, forcing the linker to create a regular
> .data section in order to prevent GDB's warning. The testcase still
> runs fine, but now PowerPC 32-bit sees full passes on this one.

Is tweaking the testcase really the best approach here?  Shouldn't GDB
just be less picky?