This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.cygnus.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH RFA] testsuite changes needed for AIX 4.3
- To: shebs at apple dot com
- Subject: Re: [PATCH RFA] testsuite changes needed for AIX 4.3
- From: Kevin Buettner <kevinb at cygnus dot com>
- Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 19:17:06 -0700
- Cc: gdb-patches at sourceware dot cygnus dot com
- References: <1000215230816.ZM2175@ocotillo.lan> <38A9E4F9.514007E1@apple.com>
On Feb 15, 3:44pm, Stan Shebs wrote:
> Kevin Buettner wrote:
> >
> > I hereby reqest approval for committing the following changes:
> >
> > * gdb.base/pointers.c (usevar): New function.
> > (main): Make sure that global variables v_int_pointer2, rptr,
> > and y are all referenced someplace in the program by calling
> > usevar() on them. [Some linkers delete symbols which are
> > never referenced. The space remains, but there's no way to
> > get a (symbolic) handle on the variable from the debugger.]
> >
> > * gdb.base/scope.exp: For powerpc-*-*, xfail the same tests
> > that rs6000-*-* does.
>
> This looks reasonable to me, with the same question as Mark Kettenis
> raises: are the xfails unconditional because the tests fail whether
> xlc or gcc is used as the compiler? If they pass with xlc, then you
> need to test gcc_compiled.
Okay. As soon as I get the rest of my patches from the branch I was
working on merged in, I was going to do a build from sourceware. I'll
test with xlc then. (The machine that I had been working on didn't
have xlc on it, or if it did, I couldn't find it.)
Also, I'd appreciate it if someone could explain to me why these
xfails are necessary. (I haven't looked hard at the problem; I
just noticed that these tests were xfailed for rs6000, and I was
getting FAILs on powerpc, so it seemed reasonable to xfail them
for powerpc too.)
Kevin
--
Kevin Buettner
kev@primenet.com, kevinb@redhat.com