This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [RFC] gdb.base/float.exp and gdb.base/commands.exp patch
- From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at false dot org>
- To: Manoj Iyer <manjo at austin dot ibm dot com>
- Cc: gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2005 19:27:18 -0500
- Subject: Re: [RFC] gdb.base/float.exp and gdb.base/commands.exp patch
- References: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0503021732360.3374@lazy>
On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 05:40:18PM -0600, Manoj Iyer wrote:
>
> Two testcases float.exp and commands.exp were failing on PowerPC for
> simple reasons, command.exp had a hard coded line number and float.exp did
> not have PowerPC as a known target. Please approve patch so that I can
> commit. Here is the patch.
>
>
>
> 2005-03-02 Manoj Iyer <manjo@austin.ibm.com>
>
> * commands.exp: Change hardcoded value to regular expression.
> * float.exp: Add powerpc to the list of targets checked.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> diff -Naurp old/src/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/commands.exp
> new/src/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/commands.exp
> --- old/src/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/commands.exp 2003-09-29
> 10:08:52.000000000 -0500
> +++ new/src/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/commands.exp 2005-03-23
> 08:18:41.000000000 -0600
> @@ -331,7 +331,7 @@ proc watchpoint_command_test {} {
> }
> send_gdb "continue\n"
> gdb_expect {
> - -re "Continuing.*\[Ww\]atchpoint $wp_id deleted because the
> program has left the block in.*which its expression is
> valid.*run.c:57.*$gdb_prompt $" {
> + -re "Continuing.*\[Ww\]atchpoint $wp_id deleted because the
> program has left the block in.*which its expression is
> valid.*run.c:\[0-9\]+.*$gdb_prompt $" {
> pass "continue with watch"
> }
> -re "$gdb_prompt $" {fail "continue with watch"}
What compiler are you testing with? On what line is it reporting that
it has left the block? I'd like to understand the difference before we
change this.
> diff -Naurp old/src/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/float.exp
> new/src/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/float.exp
> --- old/src/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/float.exp 2004-06-08
> 10:50:59.000000000 -0500
> +++ new/src/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/float.exp 2005-03-23
> 08:19:38.000000000 -0600
> @@ -65,6 +65,8 @@ if { [istarget "alpha*-*-*"] } then {
> gdb_test "info float" "fp0.*fp1.*fp7.*" "info float"
> } elseif [istarget "mips*-*-*"] then {
> gdb_test "info float" "f0:.*flt:.*dbl:.*" "info float"
> +} elseif [istarget "powerpc*-*-*"] then {
> + gdb_test "info float" "f0.*f1.*f31.*fpscr.*" "info float"
> } elseif [istarget "s390*-*-*"] then {
> gdb_test "info float" "fpc.*f0.*f1.*f15.*" "info float"
> } elseif [istarget "sh*-*"] then {
What about PowerPC targets which don't have an FPU? Hmm, it looks like
GDB more or less assumes the FP is present. Not sure about SPE though.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery, LLC