[GAS][ARM] Fix UDF testism

[Andre Vieira (lists)]

On 26/10/18 22:42, Thomas Preudhomme wrote:
> 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.
>>
Ping