From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30379 invoked by alias); 16 Jan 2003 17:53:23 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 30331 invoked from network); 16 Jan 2003 17:53:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 16 Jan 2003 17:53:07 -0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0GHOgB21400 for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2003 12:24:42 -0500 Received: from pobox.corp.redhat.com (pobox.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.156]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0GHr6a11459 for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2003 12:53:06 -0500 Received: from localhost.redhat.com (romulus-int.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.27.46]) by pobox.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0GHr2M03555; Thu, 16 Jan 2003 12:53:02 -0500 Received: by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 469) id 8C51BFF79; Thu, 16 Jan 2003 12:57:23 -0500 (EST) From: Elena Zannoni MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <15910.62083.363876.797928@localhost.redhat.com> Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 17:53:00 -0000 To: Michael Elizabeth Chastain Cc: carlton@math.stanford.edu, ezannoni@redhat.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] Make tests more flexible In-Reply-To: <200301161735.h0GHZAM15898@duracef.shout.net> References: <200301161735.h0GHZAM15898@duracef.shout.net> X-SW-Source: 2003-01/txt/msg00618.txt.bz2 Michael Elizabeth Chastain writes: > Ah, okay, my head is spinning with all the mail flying around. > > David C's log files are the same as my log files. > It looks like one bug in both advance.exp and until.exp. > For me: > It happened the same way for both dwarf-2 and stabs+. > It happened the same way with all binutils. > It happened with gcc => 3.2.1, gcc-3_2-branch, gcc-3_3-branch, HEAD. > It did NOT happen with gcc => 2.95.3, vendor. > > So I think there is only one bug here I think Elena Z can reproduce it > by using a gcc v3 compiler with any debug format. > > Michael C Ah ok, I am using gcc version 2.96 20000731 (Red Hat Linux 7.2 2.96-108.7.2). So, recapping, which one is correct? the old compiler (and the test is right) or the new compiler (and the test is wrong)? Elena