* gdb.base/callfwmall.c, gdb.base/callfwmall.exp: Move these tests

from here...
* gdb.hp/gdb.base-hp/callfwmall.c, gdb.hp/gdb.base-hp/callfwmall.exp:
To here.  Disable this test on non-HP platforms.  Add big comment.

2 files changed, 708 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.hp/gdb.base-hp/callfwmall.c b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.hp/gdb.base-hp/callfwmall.c
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..67edb8b70d4
--- /dev/null
+++ b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.hp/gdb.base-hp/callfwmall.c
@@ -0,0 +1,362 @@
+/* Support program for testing gdb's ability to call functions
+   in an inferior which doesn't itself call malloc, pass appropriate
+   arguments to those functions, and get the returned result. */
+
+#ifdef NO_PROTOTYPES
+#define PARAMS(paramlist) ()
+#else
+#define PARAMS(paramlist) paramlist
+#endif
+
+# include <string.h>
+
+char char_val1 = 'a';
+char char_val2 = 'b';
+
+short short_val1 = 10;
+short short_val2 = -23;
+
+int int_val1 = 87;
+int int_val2 = -26;
+
+long long_val1 = 789;
+long long_val2 = -321;
+
+float float_val1 = 3.14159;
+float float_val2 = -2.3765;
+
+double double_val1 = 45.654;
+double double_val2 = -67.66;
+
+#define DELTA (0.001)
+
+char *string_val1 = (char *)"string 1";
+char *string_val2 = (char *)"string 2";
+
+char char_array_val1[] = "carray 1";
+char char_array_val2[] = "carray 2";
+
+struct struct1 {
+  char c;
+  short s;
+  int i;
+  long l;
+  float f;
+  double d;
+  char a[4];
+} struct_val1 = { 'x', 87, 76, 51, 2.1234, 9.876, "foo" };
+
+/* Some functions that can be passed as arguments to other test
+   functions, or called directly. */
+#ifdef PROTOTYPES
+int add (int a, int b)
+#else
+int add (a, b) int a, b;
+#endif
+{
+  return (a + b);
+}
+
+#ifdef PROTOTYPES
+int doubleit (int a)
+#else
+int doubleit (a)
+int a;
+#endif
+{
+  return (a + a);
+}
+
+int (*func_val1) PARAMS((int,int)) = add;
+int (*func_val2) PARAMS((int)) = doubleit;
+
+/* An enumeration and functions that test for specific values. */
+
+enum enumtype { enumval1, enumval2, enumval3 };
+enum enumtype enum_val1 = enumval1;
+enum enumtype enum_val2 = enumval2;
+enum enumtype enum_val3 = enumval3;
+
+#ifdef PROTOTYPES
+int t_enum_value1 (enum enumtype enum_arg)
+#else
+t_enum_value1 (enum_arg)
+enum enumtype enum_arg;
+#endif
+{
+  return (enum_arg == enum_val1);
+}
+
+#ifdef PROTOTYPES
+int t_enum_value2 (enum enumtype enum_arg)
+#else
+t_enum_value2 (enum_arg)
+enum enumtype enum_arg;
+#endif
+{
+  return (enum_arg == enum_val2);
+}
+
+#ifdef PROTOTYPES
+int t_enum_value3 (enum enumtype enum_arg)
+#else
+t_enum_value3 (enum_arg)
+enum enumtype enum_arg;
+#endif
+{
+  return (enum_arg == enum_val3);
+}
+
+/* A function that takes a vector of integers (along with an explicit
+   count) and returns their sum. */
+
+#ifdef PROTOTYPES
+int sum_args (int argc, int argv[])
+#else
+int sum_args (argc, argv)
+int argc;
+int argv[];
+#endif
+{
+  int sumval = 0;
+  int idx;
+
+  for (idx = 0; idx < argc; idx++)
+    {
+      sumval += argv[idx];
+    }
+  return (sumval);
+}
+
+/* Test that we can call functions that take structs and return
+   members from that struct */
+
+#ifdef PROTOTYPES
+char   t_structs_c (struct struct1 tstruct) { return (tstruct.c); }
+short  t_structs_s (struct struct1 tstruct) { return (tstruct.s); }
+int    t_structs_i (struct struct1 tstruct) { return (tstruct.i); }
+long   t_structs_l (struct struct1 tstruct) { return (tstruct.l); }
+float  t_structs_f (struct struct1 tstruct) { return (tstruct.f); }
+double t_structs_d (struct struct1 tstruct) { return (tstruct.d); }
+char  *t_structs_a (struct struct1 tstruct)
+{
+  static char buf[8];
+  strcpy (buf, tstruct.a);
+  return buf;
+}
+#else
+char   t_structs_c (tstruct) struct struct1 tstruct; { return (tstruct.c); }
+short  t_structs_s (tstruct) struct struct1 tstruct; { return (tstruct.s); }
+int    t_structs_i (tstruct) struct struct1 tstruct; { return (tstruct.i); }
+long   t_structs_l (tstruct) struct struct1 tstruct; { return (tstruct.l); }
+float  t_structs_f (tstruct) struct struct1 tstruct; { return (tstruct.f); }
+double t_structs_d (tstruct) struct struct1 tstruct; { return (tstruct.d); }
+char  *t_structs_a (tstruct) struct struct1 tstruct;
+{
+  static char buf[8];
+  strcpy (buf, tstruct.a);
+  return buf;
+}
+#endif
+
+/* Test that calling functions works if there are a lot of arguments.  */
+#ifdef PROTOTYPES
+int sum10 (int i0, int i1, int i2, int i3, int i4, int i5, int i6, int i7, int i8, int i9)
+#else
+int
+sum10 (i0, i1, i2, i3, i4, i5, i6, i7, i8, i9)
+     int i0, i1, i2, i3, i4, i5, i6, i7, i8, i9;
+#endif
+{
+  return i0 + i1 + i2 + i3 + i4 + i5 + i6 + i7 + i8 + i9;
+}
+
+/* Gotta have a main to be able to generate a linked, runnable
+   executable, and also provide a useful place to set a breakpoint. */
+
+#ifdef PROTOTYPES
+int main()
+#else
+main ()
+#endif
+{
+#ifdef usestubs
+  set_debug_traps();
+  breakpoint();
+#endif
+  t_structs_c(struct_val1);
+  return 0;
+  
+}
+
+/* Functions that expect specific values to be passed and return 
+   either 0 or 1, depending upon whether the values were
+   passed incorrectly or correctly, respectively. */
+
+#ifdef PROTOTYPES
+int t_char_values (char char_arg1, char char_arg2)
+#else
+int t_char_values (char_arg1, char_arg2)
+char char_arg1, char_arg2;
+#endif
+{
+  return ((char_arg1 == char_val1) && (char_arg2 == char_val2));
+}
+
+int
+#ifdef PROTOTYPES
+t_small_values (char arg1, short arg2, int arg3, char arg4, short arg5,
+		char arg6, short arg7, int arg8, short arg9, short arg10)
+#else
+t_small_values (arg1, arg2, arg3, arg4, arg5, arg6, arg7, arg8, arg9, arg10)
+     char arg1;
+     short arg2;
+     int arg3;
+     char arg4;
+     short arg5;
+     char arg6;
+     short arg7;
+     int arg8;
+     short arg9;
+     short arg10;
+#endif
+{
+  return arg1 + arg2 + arg3 + arg4 + arg5 + arg6 + arg7 + arg8 + arg9 + arg10;
+}
+
+#ifdef PROTOTYPES
+int t_short_values (short short_arg1, short short_arg2)
+#else
+int t_short_values (short_arg1, short_arg2)
+short short_arg1, short_arg2;
+#endif
+{
+  return ((short_arg1 == short_val1) && (short_arg2 == short_val2));
+}
+
+#ifdef PROTOTYPES
+int t_int_values (int int_arg1, int int_arg2)
+#else
+int t_int_values (int_arg1, int_arg2)
+int int_arg1, int_arg2;
+#endif
+{
+  return ((int_arg1 == int_val1) && (int_arg2 == int_val2));
+}
+
+#ifdef PROTOTYPES
+int t_long_values (long long_arg1, long long_arg2)
+#else
+int t_long_values (long_arg1, long_arg2)
+long long_arg1, long_arg2;
+#endif
+{
+  return ((long_arg1 == long_val1) && (long_arg2 == long_val2));
+}
+
+/* NOTE: THIS FUNCTION MUST NOT BE PROTOTYPED!!!!!
+   There must be one version of "t_float_values" (this one)
+   that is not prototyped, and one (if supported) that is (following).
+   That way GDB can be tested against both cases.  */
+   
+int t_float_values (float_arg1, float_arg2)
+float float_arg1, float_arg2;
+{
+  return ((float_arg1 - float_val1) < DELTA
+	  && (float_arg1 - float_val1) > -DELTA
+	  && (float_arg2 - float_val2) < DELTA
+	  && (float_arg2 - float_val2) > -DELTA);
+}
+
+int
+#ifdef NO_PROTOTYPES
+/* In this case we are just duplicating t_float_values, but that is the
+   easiest way to deal with either ANSI or non-ANSI.  */
+t_float_values2 (float_arg1, float_arg2)
+     float float_arg1, float_arg2;
+#else
+t_float_values2 (float float_arg1, float float_arg2)
+#endif
+{
+  return ((float_arg1 - float_val1) < DELTA
+	  && (float_arg1 - float_val1) > -DELTA
+	  && (float_arg2 - float_val2) < DELTA
+	  && (float_arg2 - float_val2) > -DELTA);
+}
+
+#ifdef PROTOTYPES
+int t_double_values (double double_arg1, double double_arg2)
+#else
+int t_double_values (double_arg1, double_arg2)
+double double_arg1, double_arg2;
+#endif
+{
+  return ((double_arg1 - double_val1) < DELTA
+	  && (double_arg1 - double_val1) > -DELTA
+	  && (double_arg2 - double_val2) < DELTA
+	  && (double_arg2 - double_val2) > -DELTA);
+}
+
+#ifdef PROTOTYPES
+int t_string_values (char *string_arg1, char *string_arg2)
+#else
+int t_string_values (string_arg1, string_arg2)
+char *string_arg1, *string_arg2;
+#endif
+{
+  return (!strcmp (string_arg1, string_val1) &&
+	  !strcmp (string_arg2, string_val2));
+}
+
+#ifdef PROTOTYPES
+int t_char_array_values (char char_array_arg1[], char char_array_arg2[])
+#else
+int t_char_array_values (char_array_arg1, char_array_arg2)
+char char_array_arg1[], char_array_arg2[];
+#endif
+{
+  return (!strcmp (char_array_arg1, char_array_val1) &&
+	  !strcmp (char_array_arg2, char_array_val2));
+}
+
+
+/* This used to simply compare the function pointer arguments with
+   known values for func_val1 and func_val2.  Doing so is valid ANSI
+   code, but on some machines (RS6000, HPPA, others?) it may fail when
+   called directly by GDB.
+
+   In a nutshell, it's not possible for GDB to determine when the address
+   of a function or the address of the function's stub/trampoline should
+   be passed.
+
+   So, to avoid GDB lossage in the common case, we perform calls through the
+   various function pointers and compare the return values.  For the HPPA
+   at least, this allows the common case to work.
+
+   If one wants to try something more complicated, pass the address of
+   a function accepting a "double" as one of its first 4 arguments.  Call
+   that function indirectly through the function pointer.  This would fail
+   on the HPPA.  */
+
+#ifdef PROTOTYPES
+int t_func_values (int (*func_arg1)(int, int), int (*func_arg2)(int))
+#else
+int t_func_values (func_arg1, func_arg2)
+int (*func_arg1) PARAMS ((int, int));
+int (*func_arg2) PARAMS ((int));
+#endif
+{
+  return ((*func_arg1) (5,5)  == (*func_val1) (5,5)
+          && (*func_arg2) (6) == (*func_val2) (6));
+}
+
+#ifdef PROTOTYPES
+int t_call_add (int (*func_arg1)(int, int), int a, int b)
+#else
+int t_call_add (func_arg1, a, b)
+int (*func_arg1) PARAMS ((int, int));
+int a, b;
+#endif
+{
+  return ((*func_arg1)(a, b));
+}
diff --git a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.hp/gdb.base-hp/callfwmall.exp b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.hp/gdb.base-hp/callfwmall.exp
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..586cabb7cdf
--- /dev/null
+++ b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.hp/gdb.base-hp/callfwmall.exp
@@ -0,0 +1,346 @@
+# Copyright 1997, 1998, 1999 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
+
+# This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
+# it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
+# the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
+# (at your option) any later version.
+# 
+# This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
+# but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
+# MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the
+# GNU General Public License for more details.
+# 
+# You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
+# along with this program; if not, write to the Free Software
+# Foundation, Inc., 59 Temple Place - Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307, USA.  */
+
+# Please email any bugs, comments, and/or additions to this file to:
+# bug-gdb@prep.ai.mit.edu
+
+# This file was written by Fred Fish. (fnf@cygnus.com)
+
+# These tests are the same as those in callfuncs.exp, except that the
+# test program here does not call malloc.
+#
+# "What in the world does malloc have to do with calling functions in
+# the inferior?"  Well, nothing.  GDB's ability to invoke a function
+# in the inferior program works just fine in programs that have no
+# malloc function available.  It doesn't rely on the inferior's
+# malloc, directly or indirectly.  It just uses the inferior's stack
+# space.
+#
+# "Then what's the point of this test file?"  Well, it just so happens
+# that this file, in addition to testing inferior function calls, also
+# tests GDB's ability to evaluate string literals (like "string 1" and
+# "string 2" in the tests below).  Evaluating *those* sorts of
+# expressions does require malloc.
+#
+# (As an extension to C, GDB also has a syntax for literal arrays of
+# anything, not just characters.  For example, the expression
+# {2,3,4,5} (which appears in the tests below) evaluates to an array
+# of four ints.  So rather than talking just about string literals,
+# we'll use the broader term "array literals".)
+#
+# Now, in this file, we only evaluate array literals when we're about
+# to pass them to a function, but don't be confused --- this is a red
+# herring.  You can evaluate "abcdef" even if you're not about to pass
+# that to a function, and doing so requires malloc even if you're just
+# going to store a pointer to it in a variable, like this:
+#
+#    (gdb) ptype s
+#    type = char *
+#    (gdb) set variable s = "abcdef"
+#
+# According to C's rules for evaluating expressions, arrays are
+# converted into pointers to their first element.  This means that, in
+# order to evaluate an expression like "abcdef", GDB needs to actually
+# find some memory in the inferior we can plop the characters into;
+# then we use that memory's address as the address of our array
+# literal.  GDB finds this memory by calling the inferior's malloc
+# function, if it has one.  So, evaluating an array literal depends on
+# performing an inferior function call, but not vice versa.  (GDB
+# can't just allocate the space on the stack; the pointer may remain
+# live long after the current frame has been popped.)
+#
+# "But, if evaluating array literals requires malloc, what's the point
+# of testing that GDB can do so in a program that doesn't have malloc?
+# It can't work!"  On most systems, that's right, but HP-UX has some
+# sort of dynamic linking magic that ensures that *every* program has
+# malloc.  So on HP-UX, GDB can evaluate array literals even in
+# inferior programs that don't use malloc.  That's why this test is in
+# gdb.hp.
+# 
+# This file has, for some reason, led to well more than its fair share
+# of misunderstandings about the relationship between array literal
+# expressions and inferior function calls.  Folks talk as if you can
+# only evaluate array literals when you're about to pass them to a
+# function.  I think they're assuming that, since GDB is constructing
+# a new frame on the inferior's stack (correct), it's going to use
+# that space for the array literals (incorrect).  Remember that those
+# array literals may need to be live long after the inferior function
+# call returns; GDB can't tell.
+#
+# What makes the confusion worse is that there *is* a relationship
+# between array literals and inferior function calls --- GDB uses
+# inferior function calls to evaluate array literals.  But many people
+# jump to other, incorrect conclusions about this.
+
+if $tracelevel then {
+	strace $tracelevel
+}
+
+set prms_id 0
+set bug_id 0
+
+if { [skip_hp_tests] } then { continue }
+
+set testfile "callfwmall"
+set srcfile ${testfile}.c
+set binfile ${objdir}/${subdir}/${testfile}
+
+if  { [gdb_compile "${srcdir}/${subdir}/${srcfile}" "${binfile}" executable {debug}] != "" } {
+     gdb_suppress_entire_file "Testcase compile failed, so all tests in this file will automatically fail."
+}
+
+# Create and source the file that provides information about the compiler
+# used to compile the test case.
+
+if [get_compiler_info ${binfile}] {
+    return -1;
+}
+
+if {$hp_aCC_compiler} {
+    set prototypes 1
+} else {
+    set prototypes 0
+}
+
+
+# Some targets can't call functions, so don't even bother with this
+# test.
+if [target_info exists gdb,cannot_call_functions] {
+    setup_xfail "*-*-*" 2416
+    fail "This target can not call functions"
+    continue
+}
+
+# Set the current language to C.  This counts as a test.  If it
+# fails, then we skip the other tests.
+
+proc set_lang_c {} {
+    global gdb_prompt
+
+    send_gdb "set language c\n"
+    gdb_expect {
+	-re ".*$gdb_prompt $" {}
+	timeout { fail "set language c (timeout)" ; return 0 }
+    }
+
+    send_gdb "show language\n"
+    gdb_expect {
+	-re ".* source language is \"c\".*$gdb_prompt $" {
+	    pass "set language to \"c\""
+	    return 1
+	}
+	-re ".*$gdb_prompt $" {
+	    fail "setting language to \"c\""
+	    return 0
+	}
+	timeout {
+	    fail "can't show language (timeout)"
+	    return 0
+	}
+    }
+}
+
+# FIXME:  Before calling this proc, we should probably verify that
+# we can call inferior functions and get a valid integral value
+# returned.
+# Note that it is OK to check for 0 or 1 as the returned values, because C
+# specifies that the numeric value of a relational or logical expression
+# (computed in the inferior) is 1 for true and 0 for false.
+
+proc do_function_calls {} {
+    global prototypes
+    global gcc_compiled
+    global gdb_prompt
+
+    # We need to up this because this can be really slow on some boards.
+    set timeout 60;
+
+    gdb_test "p t_char_values(0,0)" " = 0"
+    gdb_test "p t_char_values('a','b')" " = 1"
+    gdb_test "p t_char_values(char_val1,char_val2)" " = 1"
+    gdb_test "p t_char_values('a',char_val2)" " = 1"
+    gdb_test "p t_char_values(char_val1,'b')" " = 1"
+
+    gdb_test "p t_short_values(0,0)" " = 0"
+    gdb_test "p t_short_values(10,-23)" " = 1"
+    gdb_test "p t_short_values(short_val1,short_val2)" " = 1"
+    gdb_test "p t_short_values(10,short_val2)" " = 1"
+    gdb_test "p t_short_values(short_val1,-23)" " = 1"
+
+    gdb_test "p t_int_values(0,0)" " = 0"
+    gdb_test "p t_int_values(87,-26)" " = 1"
+    gdb_test "p t_int_values(int_val1,int_val2)" " = 1"
+    gdb_test "p t_int_values(87,int_val2)" " = 1"
+    gdb_test "p t_int_values(int_val1,-26)" " = 1"
+
+    gdb_test "p t_long_values(0,0)" " = 0"
+    gdb_test "p t_long_values(789,-321)" " = 1"
+    gdb_test "p t_long_values(long_val1,long_val2)" " = 1"
+    gdb_test "p t_long_values(789,long_val2)" " = 1"
+    gdb_test "p t_long_values(long_val1,-321)" " = 1"
+
+    if ![target_info exists gdb,skip_float_tests] {
+	gdb_test "p t_float_values(0.0,0.0)" " = 0"
+
+	# These next four tests fail on the mn10300.
+	# The first value is passed in regs, the other in memory.
+	# Gcc emits different stabs for the two parameters; the first is
+	# claimed to be a float, the second a double.
+	# dbxout.c in gcc claims this is the desired behavior.
+	setup_xfail "mn10300-*-*"
+	gdb_test "p t_float_values(3.14159,-2.3765)" " = 1"
+	setup_xfail "mn10300-*-*"
+	gdb_test "p t_float_values(float_val1,float_val2)" " = 1"
+	setup_xfail "mn10300-*-*"
+	gdb_test "p t_float_values(3.14159,float_val2)" " = 1"
+	setup_xfail "mn10300-*-*"
+	gdb_test "p t_float_values(float_val1,-2.3765)" " = 1"
+
+	# Test passing of arguments which might not be widened.
+	gdb_test "p t_float_values2(0.0,0.0)" " = 0"
+
+	# Although PR 5318 mentions SunOS specifically, this seems
+	# to be a generic problem on quite a few platforms.
+	if $prototypes then {
+	    setup_xfail "sparc-*-*" "mips*-*-*" 5318
+	    if {!$gcc_compiled} then {
+		setup_xfail "alpha-dec-osf2*" "i*86-*-sysv4*" 5318
+	    }
+	}
+	gdb_test "p t_float_values2(3.14159,float_val2)" " = 1"
+	gdb_test "p t_small_values(1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10)" " = 55"
+
+	gdb_test "p t_double_values(0.0,0.0)" " = 0"
+	gdb_test "p t_double_values(45.654,-67.66)" " = 1"
+	gdb_test "p t_double_values(double_val1,double_val2)" " = 1"
+	gdb_test "p t_double_values(45.654,double_val2)" " = 1"
+	gdb_test "p t_double_values(double_val1,-67.66)" " = 1"
+   
+    }
+
+    gdb_test "p t_string_values(string_val2,string_val1)" " = 0"
+    gdb_test "p t_string_values(string_val1,string_val2)" " = 1"
+    gdb_test "p t_string_values(\"string 1\",\"string 2\")" " = 1"
+    gdb_test "p t_string_values(\"string 1\",string_val2)" " = 1"
+    gdb_test "p t_string_values(string_val1,\"string 2\")" " = 1"
+
+    gdb_test "p t_char_array_values(char_array_val2,char_array_val1)" " = 0"
+    gdb_test "p t_char_array_values(char_array_val1,char_array_val2)" " = 1"
+    gdb_test "p t_char_array_values(\"carray 1\",\"carray 2\")" " = 1"
+    gdb_test "p t_char_array_values(\"carray 1\",char_array_val2)" " = 1"
+    gdb_test "p t_char_array_values(char_array_val1,\"carray 2\")" " = 1"
+
+    gdb_test "p doubleit(4)" " = 8"
+    gdb_test "p add(4,5)" " = 9"
+    gdb_test "p t_func_values(func_val2,func_val1)" " = 0"
+    gdb_test "p t_func_values(func_val1,func_val2)" " = 1"
+
+    # On the rs6000, we need to pass the address of the trampoline routine,
+    # not the address of add itself.  I don't know how to go from add to
+    # the address of the trampoline.  Similar problems exist on the HPPA,
+    # and in fact can present an unsolvable problem as the stubs may not
+    # even exist in the user's program.  We've slightly recoded t_func_values
+    # to avoid such problems in the common case.  This may or may not help
+    # the RS6000.
+    setup_xfail "rs6000*-*-*"
+    setup_xfail "powerpc*-*-*"
+
+    if {![istarget hppa*-*-hpux*]} then {
+	gdb_test "p t_func_values(add,func_val2)" " = 1"
+    }
+
+    setup_xfail "rs6000*-*-*"
+    setup_xfail "powerpc*-*-*"
+
+    if {![istarget hppa*-*-hpux*]} then {
+	gdb_test "p t_func_values(func_val1,doubleit)" " = 1"
+    }
+
+    gdb_test "p t_call_add(func_val1,3,4)" " = 7"
+
+    setup_xfail "rs6000*-*-*"
+    setup_xfail "powerpc*-*-*"
+
+    if {![istarget hppa*-*-hpux*]} then {
+	gdb_test "p t_call_add(add,3,4)" " = 7"
+    }
+    
+    gdb_test "p t_enum_value1(enumval1)" " = 1"
+    gdb_test "p t_enum_value1(enum_val1)" " = 1"
+    gdb_test "p t_enum_value1(enum_val2)" " = 0"
+
+    gdb_test "p t_enum_value2(enumval2)" " = 1"
+    gdb_test "p t_enum_value2(enum_val2)" " = 1"
+    gdb_test "p t_enum_value2(enum_val1)" " = 0"
+
+    gdb_test "p sum_args(1,{2})" " = 2"
+    gdb_test "p sum_args(2,{2,3})" " = 5"
+    gdb_test "p sum_args(3,{2,3,4})" " = 9"
+    gdb_test "p sum_args(4,{2,3,4,5})" " = 14"
+    gdb_test "p sum10 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10)" " = 55"
+
+    gdb_test "p t_structs_c(struct_val1)" "= 120 'x'" \
+	"call inferior func with struct - returns char"
+    gdb_test "p t_structs_s(struct_val1)" "= 87" \
+	"call inferior func with struct -  returns short"
+    gdb_test "p t_structs_i(struct_val1)" "= 76" \
+	"call inferior func with struct - returns int"
+    gdb_test "p t_structs_l(struct_val1)" "= 51" \
+	"call inferior func with struct - returns long"
+    gdb_test "p t_structs_f(struct_val1)" "= 2.12.*" \
+	"call inferior func with struct - returns float"
+    gdb_test "p t_structs_d(struct_val1)" "= 9.87.*" \
+	"call inferior func with struct - returns double"
+    gdb_test "p t_structs_a(struct_val1)" "= (.unsigned char .. )?\"foo\"" \
+	"call inferior func with struct - returns char *"
+
+}
+
+# Start with a fresh gdb.
+
+gdb_exit
+gdb_start
+gdb_reinitialize_dir $srcdir/$subdir
+gdb_load ${binfile}
+
+gdb_test "set print sevenbit-strings" ""
+gdb_test "set print address off" ""
+gdb_test "set width 0" ""
+
+if { $hp_aCC_compiler } {
+    # Do not set language explicitly to 'C'.  This will cause aCC
+    # tests to fail because promotion rules are different.  Just let
+    # the language be set to the default.
+
+    if { ![runto_main] } {
+	gdb_suppress_tests;
+    }
+
+    gdb_test "set overload-resolution 0" ".*"
+} else {
+    if { ![set_lang_c] } {
+	gdb_suppress_tests;
+    } else {
+	if { ![runto_main] } {
+	    gdb_suppress_tests;
+	}
+    }
+}
+
+gdb_test "next" ".*"
+do_function_calls
+
+return 0