From a0d5ef869da20e023e4b75860012c56273f26d92 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Tom de Vries Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2023 13:44:13 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] [gdb/testsuite] Fix gdb.python/py-value-cc.exp for big endian On s390x-linux, I run into: ... (gdb) python print(u[u_fields[0]])^M 99^M (gdb) PASS: gdb.python/py-value-cc.exp: u's first field via field python print(u[u_fields[1]])^M 0 '\000'^M (gdb) FAIL: gdb.python/py-value-cc.exp: u's second field via field ... There's a var u of this type: ... union U { int a; char c; }; ... and after assigning 99 to u.a, the test-case expects u.c to contain 99 (which it does on x86_64), but instead it contains 0. Fix this by instead assigning 0x63636363, to ensure that u.c == 99 for both little and big endian. Tested on x86_64-linux and s390x-linux. --- gdb/testsuite/gdb.python/py-value-cc.cc | 2 +- gdb/testsuite/gdb.python/py-value-cc.exp | 3 ++- 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.python/py-value-cc.cc b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.python/py-value-cc.cc index 817b089c35f..d82e385d6c5 100644 --- a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.python/py-value-cc.cc +++ b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.python/py-value-cc.cc @@ -77,7 +77,7 @@ func (const A &a) Btd &b_td = b1; U u; - u.a = 99; + u.a = 0x63636363; X x; x.x = 101; diff --git a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.python/py-value-cc.exp b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.python/py-value-cc.exp index 1ea10ad0058..b6571cd8297 100644 --- a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.python/py-value-cc.exp +++ b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.python/py-value-cc.exp @@ -80,7 +80,8 @@ gdb_test "python print(b_td\[b_fields\[0\]\].type.target())" "A" \ gdb_test "python print(b_td\[b_fields\[0\]\]\['a'\])" "100" \ "b_td.A::a via field" -gdb_test "python print(u\[u_fields\[0\]\])" "99.*" "u's first field via field" +gdb_test "python print(hex(u\[u_fields\[0\]\]))" "0x63636363.*" \ + "u's first field via field" gdb_test "python print(u\[u_fields\[1\]\])" "99.*" "u's second field via field" gdb_test "python print(len(x_fields))" "2" "number for fields in u" -- 2.30.2