[testuite patch] Fix cross-arch .S testsuite files compatibility

[Thomas Schwinge]

Hi!

On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 09:51:58 +0100, Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 10:32:06 +0100, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> > On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 10:06:02 +0100, Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 09:57:11 +0100, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> > > > Can there be other semantic differences between the two?
> > > 
> > > It is a good question and I am not aware of any such differences.
> > 
> > Hmm, I just had a quick look, and found that, for example, tc-arm.c has
> > this:
> > 
> >     #ifdef OBJ_ELF
> >       { "word",	        s_arm_elf_cons, 4 },
> >       { "long",	        s_arm_elf_cons, 4 },
> > 
> > ... and obj-elf.c:
> > 
> >       {"4byte", cons, 4},
> > 
> > Compared to cons, s_arm_elf_cons does quite a lot of things, for example
> > handle mapping symbols (which cons doesn't do, I think?).
> 
> It does not seem to be needed for these testcases, they still PASS on:
> 	armv7l-unknown-linux-gnueabihf
> (I did not verify if they still FAIL->PASS by their specific fixes.)

I still have some reservations about this patch, but I won't hold it up
having now now tested that it doesn't change the test results for
sh-linux-gnu cross-testing -- SH also differentiates between using
sh_elf_cons for .long/.int/etc. vs. s_uacons for .2byte/.4byte/.8byte.


Grüße,
 Thomas
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 489 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-patches/attachments/20120321/bb10d85c/attachment.sig>