From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id D94DD385F02B; Sat, 28 Oct 2023 19:36:29 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org D94DD385F02B DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org; s=default; t=1698521789; bh=bt71WcjDe9h/WC81AhinSSSmJoVARl4qYVRMnqFX+b4=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=VJSNj0E1StTfOKUYVCtAm9JkdYlFw+zHJa6sKuCVkSELIbhsQNOFOvL+IngSMzhPR 2sMZDrXPkF9HSyNfy3vsJtQxNnRQf0GCHi8shVzJI/7Hcn/e8Fd7jOGVwKZn5BxgZh KMf/mmEU0ajNP8h/YfcpDrvPk1NoiChb2LuiQIks= From: "simark at simark dot ca" To: gdb-prs@sourceware.org Subject: [Bug gdb/30912] Regression: make check TESTS="gdb.base/gcore.exp" RUNTESTFLAGS="--target_board=native-extended-gdbserver" Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2023 19:36:29 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gdb X-Bugzilla-Component: gdb X-Bugzilla-Version: HEAD X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: simark at simark dot ca X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at sourceware dot org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 14.1 X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: cc Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: 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 List-Id: https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D30912 Simon Marchi changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |simark at simark dot ca --- Comment #4 from Simon Marchi --- IIRC, this failure was introduced with the XSAVE work, but I don't remember= the specifics of why the test passed before and it doesn't now. It's likely related to the fact that we don't have a way for GDB to get the CPUID information from GDBserver (John can confirm). Looking at the failure a bit more in details, when doing "info all-reg" we expect this (I only included ymm0 for brevity, but it's ymm0 to ymm15): ymm0 {v16_bfloat16 =3D {0xc300, 0xf7e9, 0x7fff, 0x0, 0xc300, 0xf7= e9, 0x7fff, 0x0, 0x0, 0x0, 0x0, 0x0, 0x0, 0x0, 0x0, 0x0}, v16_half =3D {0xc300, 0xf7e9, 0x7fff, 0x0, 0xc300, 0xf7e9, 0x7fff, 0x0, 0x0, 0x0, 0x0, 0x0, 0x0, = 0x0, 0x0, 0x0}, v8_float =3D {0xf7e9c300, 0x7fff, 0xf7e9c300, 0x7fff, 0x0, 0x0, = 0x0, 0x0}, v4_double =3D {0x7ffff7e9c300, 0x7ffff7e9c300, 0x0, 0x0}, v32_int8 = =3D {0x0, 0xc3, 0xe9, 0xf7, 0xff, 0x7f, 0x0, 0x0, 0x0, 0xc3, 0xe9, 0xf7, 0xff, 0x7f, = 0x0 }, v16_int16 =3D {0xc300, 0xf7e9, 0x7fff, 0x0, 0xc300, 0x= f7e9, 0x7fff, 0x0, 0x0, 0x0, 0x0, 0x0, 0x0, 0x0, 0x0, 0x0}, v8_int32 =3D {0xf7e9c= 300, 0x7fff, 0xf7e9c300, 0x7fff, 0x0, 0x0, 0x0, 0x0}, v4_int64 =3D {0x7ffff7e9c3= 00, 0x7ffff7e9c300, 0x0, 0x0}, v2_int128 =3D {0x7ffff7e9c30000007ffff7e9c300, 0= x0}} but get: ymm0 {v16_bfloat16 =3D {0xc300, 0xf7e9, 0x7fff, 0x0, 0xc300, 0xf7= e9, 0x7fff, 0x0, , , , , , , , }, v16_half =3D {0xc300, 0xf7e9, 0x7fff, 0x0, 0xc300, 0xf7e9, 0x7fff, 0x0, , , , , , , , }, v8_float =3D {0xf7e9c300, 0x7fff, 0xf7e9c300, 0x7fff, , , , }, v4_dou= ble =3D {0x7ffff7e9c300, 0x7ffff7e9c300, , }, v32_int= 8 =3D {0x0, 0xc3, 0xe9, 0xf7, 0xff, 0x7f, 0x0, 0x0, 0x0, 0xc3, 0xe9, 0xf7, 0xff, 0x7f, 0x0, 0x0, }, v16_int16 =3D {0xc300, 0= xf7e9, 0x7fff, 0x0, 0xc300, 0xf7e9, 0x7fff, 0x0, , , , , , , , }, v8_int32 =3D {0xf7e9c300, 0x7fff, 0xf7e9c300, 0x7fff, , , , }, v4_int64 =3D {0x7ffff7e9c300, 0x7ffff7e9c300, , }, v2_int128 = =3D {0x7ffff7e9c30000007ffff7e9c300, }} --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.=