This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: review request: implementing DW_AT_endianity
> I suggest naming this function type_byte_order. Functions named "gdbarch_*" are usually
> those part of the gdbarch interface (defined in gdbarch.sh/.h/.c).
done.
> Nice. Assginment of fields by GDB would be a good thing to check in the test.
done.
> Ah indeed. Do you report the gcc bugs you find to them?
I will verify first on the dev version of gcc8 that this is still an issue before submitting a report.
> testsuite.
It is normal to see the number of tests vary when running the test suite (make check -j8)? My before and after runs had an unexpected difference in the numbers of tests:
=== gdb Summary ===
-# of expected passes 40087
-# of unexpected failures 96
+# of expected passes 40082
+# of unexpected failures 98
# of unexpected successes 1
# of expected failures 67
# of unknown successes 3
My test added 4 additional expected passes (and I verified that my new tests ran in gdb/testsuite/gdb.log), so the number of expected successes should have grown by 4, not decreased by 5? Some of the failures differences look like buggy tests (outputting pids and so forth).
I clearly didn't regress anything significant, but didn't expect the baseline to vary run to run.
Peeter