From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 59946 invoked by alias); 1 Aug 2017 17:57:23 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 59933 invoked by uid 89); 1 Aug 2017 17:57:22 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy=Hx-languages-length:938, misread, H*o:Research X-HELO: mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (HELO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com) (148.163.156.1) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Tue, 01 Aug 2017 17:57:21 +0000 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098404.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.21/8.16.0.21) with SMTP id v71HssSJ031417 for ; Tue, 1 Aug 2017 13:57:19 -0400 Received: from e06smtp12.uk.ibm.com (e06smtp12.uk.ibm.com [195.75.94.108]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2c2uhxs2ys-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Tue, 01 Aug 2017 13:57:19 -0400 Received: from localhost by e06smtp12.uk.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Tue, 1 Aug 2017 18:57:17 +0100 Received: from b06cxnps4075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (9.149.109.197) by e06smtp12.uk.ibm.com (192.168.101.142) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; Tue, 1 Aug 2017 18:57:15 +0100 Received: from d06av23.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av23.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.59]) by b06cxnps4075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id v71HvEW825297026; Tue, 1 Aug 2017 17:57:14 GMT Received: from d06av23.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 170B4A404D; Tue, 1 Aug 2017 18:54:16 +0100 (BST) Received: from d06av23.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6E13A4040; Tue, 1 Aug 2017 18:54:15 +0100 (BST) Received: from oc1027705133.ibm.com (unknown [9.152.212.202]) by d06av23.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Tue, 1 Aug 2017 18:54:15 +0100 (BST) From: Andreas Arnez To: Tom Tromey Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [pushed] s390-vregs.exp: Fix Tcl error after non-zero-pad patch References: <87wp6o8dh8.fsf@tromey.com> Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2017 17:57:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <87wp6o8dh8.fsf@tromey.com> (Tom Tromey's message of "Mon, 31 Jul 2017 16:10:11 -0600") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 x-cbid: 17080117-0008-0000-0000-00000487B657 X-IBM-AV-DETECTION: SAVI=unused REMOTE=unused XFE=unused x-cbparentid: 17080117-0009-0000-0000-00001E159F86 Message-Id: X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:,, definitions=2017-08-01_09:,, signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 spamscore=0 suspectscore=0 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 adultscore=0 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1706020000 definitions=main-1708010293 X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2017-08/txt/msg00014.txt.bz2 On Mon, Jul 31 2017, Tom Tromey wrote: >>>>>> "Andreas" == Andreas Arnez writes: > > Andreas> This is a regression, caused by commit 30a254669b16b8 -- "Don't always > Andreas> zero pad in print_*_chars". That patch introduced a new procedure > Andreas> "hex128" for formatting a 128-bit value as hex, but it accidentally moved > Andreas> the calculation of the 128-bit value into that new procedure as well > Andreas> instead of leaving it in the original context. This is fixed. > > Thanks. I'm sorry about that. I try not to make mistakes like this by > running all my changes through the buildbot, but either it didn't report > this, or I misread the results. Sure, no problem. Note that this test only runs on systems with a vector facility. And even then your patch didn't cause additional FAILs, but a Tcl error instead. -- Andreas