[GAS][ARM] Fix UDF testism

[Thomas Preudhomme]

Yes indeed, the encoding already gives the size of the instruction
anyway. LGTM but as I said, you'll need someone else to approve.
Thanks.

Best regards,

Thomas
On Fri, 26 Oct 2018 at 15:15, Andre Vieira (lists)
<Andre.SimoesDiasVieira@arm.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Thomas,
>
> Thanks for the review.  I changed the test file and used the same as I
> did in another test, '[^<]*<', that way it also consumes the address
> which is irrelevant to this test.
>
> Cheers,
> Andre
> On 26/10/18 11:24, Thomas Preudhomme wrote:
> > Hi Andre,
> >
> > I'm not a maintainer but I have one comment nonetheless: I'd suggest
> > using the 0+ notation to absorb all the 0s in the address prefix to be
> > consistent with the rest of the testsuite (see eg.
> > gas/testsuite/gas/arm/arch6zk.d as a random example).
> >
> > Looks good to me otherwise. Best regards,
> >
> > Thomas
> > On Fri, 19 Oct 2018 at 16:00, Andre Vieira (lists)
> > <Andre.SimoesDiasVieira@arm.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> This patch fixes a testism.
> >> The old test never checked the objdump output since the 'error-output'
> >> directive
> >> would exit and thus never run objdump.  When this test was changed to
> >> adhere to
> >> use the new warning_output we started to run objdump.  The expected objdump
> >> output was old and had bitrotten, this fixes the layout, as the
> >> "disassembly"
> >> itself did not change.
> >>
> >> Is this OK for trunk?
> >>
> >> 2018-10-19  Andre Vieira  <andre.simoesdiasvieira@arm.com>
> >>
> >>         * testsuite/gas/arm/udf.d: Update expected output.
>