From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22303 invoked by alias); 2 May 2002 04:26:17 -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 22292 invoked from network); 2 May 2002 04:26:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO duracef.shout.net) (204.253.184.12) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 2 May 2002 04:26:15 -0000 Received: (from mec@localhost) by duracef.shout.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g424QEw29432; Wed, 1 May 2002 23:26:14 -0500 Date: Wed, 01 May 2002 21:26:00 -0000 From: Michael Elizabeth Chastain Message-Id: <200205020426.g424QEw29432@duracef.shout.net> To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, jimb@redhat.com Subject: Re: RFA: test for GDB C++ STABS problem X-SW-Source: 2002-05/txt/msg00025.txt.bz2 This patch is approved, with one optional change request. That is to say, you can commit it as is, or you can make the change. The optional change is to add an initialization for "var_in_b" to a nonzero value such as 100. That way, the test is less likely to succeed by accident. I tried this and it did not affect the test results. Here are my testbed results (native i686-pc-linux-gnu gdb HEAD): 2.95.3 -gdwarf-2 PASS 2.96-rh -gdwarf-2 PASS 3.0.4 -gdwarf-2 ERROR: process no longer exists gcc-3_1-branch -gdwarf-2 PASS HEAD -gdwarf-2 PASS 2.95.3 -gstabs+ FAIL (timeout) 2.96-rh -gstabs+ FAIL (timeout) 3.0.4 -gstabs+ FAIL (timeout) gcc-3_1-branch -gstabs+ FAIL (timeout) HEAD -gstabs+ FAIL (timeout) As always, I appreciate your essays in the comment section. Michael C