From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <sourceware-bugzilla@sourceware.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
 id 61C7F385DC1F; Thu, 23 Jun 2022 15:19:30 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 61C7F385DC1F
From: "cel at us dot ibm.com" <sourceware-bugzilla@sourceware.org>
To: gdb-prs@sourceware.org
Subject: [Bug tdep/29247] [gdb, tdep] ../../gdb/ppc-sysv-tdep.c:1945:
 internal-error: ppc64_sysv_abi_return_value: Assertion `ok' failed
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2022 15:19:30 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gdb
X-Bugzilla-Component: tdep
X-Bugzilla-Version: 12.1
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: cel at us dot ibm.com
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at sourceware dot org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-29247-4717-WCL3RWt6Ta@http.sourceware.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-29247-4717@http.sourceware.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-29247-4717@http.sourceware.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-BeenThere: gdb-prs@sourceware.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Gdb-prs mailing list <gdb-prs.sourceware.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://sourceware.org/mailman/options/gdb-prs>,
 <mailto:gdb-prs-request@sourceware.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-prs/>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-prs-request@sourceware.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://sourceware.org/mailman/listinfo/gdb-prs>,
 <mailto:gdb-prs-request@sourceware.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2022 15:19:30 -0000

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D29247

--- Comment #10 from Carl E Love <cel at us dot ibm.com> ---
Looking at the code from Tom and the comments from Ulrich, it appears that =
we
just need to check for floatformats_ieee_quad in addition to the check for
floatformats_ibm_long_double.=20=20

I created a patch to change the check for floatformats_ibm_long_double to c=
heck
for both.  The patch fixes the assert issue.  However, there does appear to=
 be
an additional issue with printing the value of long double _Complex with a
format of
"d".=20=20

p/d check_arg_struct_01_01 (ref_val_struct_01_01)
$1 =3D 0
(gdb) FAIL: gdb.base/infcall-nested-structs-c.exp: types-tldc: p/d
check_arg_struct_01_01 (ref_val_struct_01_01)

I notice that the prints fail for:

complex, int, length 4
complex, float, length 16

in all cases we have:
      gdbarch_long_double_format (gdbarch) =3D=3D floatformats_ieee_quad

I added Tom's self test to gdb.  With my patch that is checking for IBM long
double and ieee quad, the self test causes gdb to assert on the ok.  In that
case, I see the value is complex, floating point, length 16 and
gdbarch_long_double_format (gdbarch) is mapped to floatformats_ieee_double
which appears to be consistent with Tom's result.=20

It looks to me as the self test is not being compiled with the correct sett=
ing
for gdbarch_long_double_format (gdbarch)?  I have not figure out why yet,
thoughts?

--=20
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.=