[RFC: Patch, PR 60102] [4.9/4.10 Regression] powerpc fp-bit ices@dwf_regno

Maciej W. Rozycki macro@codesourcery.com
Sun Sep 28 22:23:00 GMT 2014


On Mon, 4 Aug 2014, Edmar wrote:

> Committed on trunk, revision 213596
> Committed on 4.9 branch, revision 213597

 This change regressed GDB for e500v2 multilibs, presumably because it 
does not understand the new DWARF register numbers and does not know how 
to map them to hardware registers.  Here's the full list of regressions 
observed:

FAIL: gdb.base/store.exp: var double l; print old l, expecting -1
FAIL: gdb.base/store.exp: var double l; print old r, expecting -2
FAIL: gdb.base/store.exp: var double l; print incremented l, expecting 2
FAIL: gdb.base/store.exp: var doublest l; print old l, expecting -1
FAIL: gdb.base/store.exp: var doublest l; print old r, expecting -2
FAIL: gdb.base/store.exp: var doublest l; print new l, expecting 4
FAIL: gdb.base/store.exp: var doublest l; print incremented l, expecting 2
FAIL: gdb.base/store.exp: upvar double l; print old l, expecting -1
FAIL: gdb.base/store.exp: upvar double l; print old r, expecting -2
UNRESOLVED: gdb.base/store.exp: upvar double l; set l to 4
UNRESOLVED: gdb.base/store.exp: upvar double l; print new l, expecting 4
FAIL: gdb.base/store.exp: upvar doublest l; print old l, expecting -1
FAIL: gdb.base/store.exp: upvar doublest l; print old r, expecting -2
UNRESOLVED: gdb.base/store.exp: upvar doublest l; set l to 4
UNRESOLVED: gdb.base/store.exp: upvar doublest l; print new l, expecting 4

These tests all used to score a PASS status.  Do you plan to address this 
problem anyhow?

  Maciej



More information about the Gcc-patches mailing list