Re: [RFA]: gdb/testsuite/gdb.arch/altivec-regs.exp Broken testcase

[Markus Deuling <deuling at de dot ibm dot com>]

Hi,

Daniel Jacobowitz schrieb:
> Mark is right again.  The fact that the testsuite isn't copying
> should point us at the fact that the output changed, and we don't know
> why.
>
> On Tue, Jan 16, 2007 at 10:28:01PM +0100, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> > This worries me a bit.  So in the past we were able to determine the
> > endianness automagically, but now we don't?  Do we understand why?
> > Doesn't this mean that something is broken that worked before?
>
> More precisely:
>
> > > +    -re "The target is assumed to be big endian.*" {
> > > +        pass "endianess"
> > > +        set endianness "big"
> > > +    }
>
> GDB has concluded from something (an earlier set command?  one of my
> gdbarch initialization changes?) that the user has specified the
> endianness.
>
> Looking at it now, it looks to me like I've got a condition backwards
> in show_endian.  The != should actually be an ==.  I can't test a patch
> for that until I get home next week though.
Is that what you meant ?

I changed
 if (target_byte_order_user != BFD_ENDIAN_UNKNOWN)
to
 if (target_byte_order_user == BFD_ENDIAN_UNKNOWN)

in show_endian().

x86:
This GDB was configured as "i686-pc-linux-gnu".
(gdb) show endian
The target endianness is set automatically (currently little endian)

So we wouldn't need the branch I inserted in altivec-regs.exp. 

But I think inserting
+set endianness ""
is a good idea. Then the testcase would have FAILed instead of abort with an error.

Regards,
Markus

--
Markus Deuling
GNU Toolchain for Linux on Cell BE
deuling@de.ibm.com