This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: Regression on gdb.ada/null_array.exp [Re: [patch] DW_AT_byte_size for array type entries]
On Thu, 04 Nov 2010 19:23:46 +0100, Joel Brobecker wrote:
> > OK, so could you XFAIL it? <=gcc-4.4 or the missing ___XA type are both fine
> > IMO. I will do it otherwise.
>
> I would do it, normally, but I think it's easier if you do it, because
> I would not be able to test the XFAIL case.
Checked-in.
BTW I did not find any difference in the ___XA DIEs so I used the <=4.4 check.
Thanks,
Jan
http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-cvs/2010-11/msg00021.html
--- src/gdb/testsuite/ChangeLog 2010/11/03 14:21:58 1.2496
+++ src/gdb/testsuite/ChangeLog 2010/11/04 18:52:11 1.2497
@@ -1,3 +1,9 @@
+2010-11-04 Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@redhat.com>
+ Joel Brobecker <brobecker@adacore.com>
+
+ * gdb.ada/null_array.exp (print my_table): Call get_compiler_info and
+ check test_compiler_info.
+
2010-11-03 Ken Werner <ken.werner@de.ibm.com>
* gdb.base/gnu_vector.exp: Adjust expect messages.
--- src/gdb/testsuite/gdb.ada/null_array.exp 2010/01/01 07:31:51 1.5
+++ src/gdb/testsuite/gdb.ada/null_array.exp 2010/11/04 18:52:11 1.6
@@ -37,6 +37,15 @@
set bp_location [gdb_get_line_number "START" ${testdir}/foo.adb]
runto "foo.adb:$bp_location"
+if [get_compiler_info ${binfile}] {
+ return -1;
+}
+
+if {[test_compiler_info {gcc-[0-3]-*}]
+ || [test_compiler_info {gcc-4-[0-4]-*}]} {
+ # Ada array bounds are missing in older GCCs.
+ setup_xfail *-*-*
+}
gdb_test "print my_table" \
"= \\(\\)" \
"print my_table"