From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27137 invoked by alias); 28 May 2002 21:12:46 -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 27113 invoked from network); 28 May 2002 21:12:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO duracef.shout.net) (204.253.184.12) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 28 May 2002 21:12:43 -0000 Received: (from mec@localhost) by duracef.shout.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g4SLCap24212; Tue, 28 May 2002 16:12:36 -0500 Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 15:26:00 -0000 From: Michael Elizabeth Chastain Message-Id: <200205282112.g4SLCap24212@duracef.shout.net> To: bkoz@redhat.com Subject: Re: gdb.c++ testsuite 1.3: member_data_static.exp (resend) Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com X-SW-Source: 2002-05/txt/msg00982.txt.bz2 Hi Benjamin, mec> (gdb) print test3 mec> $2 = {static data = } bk> ... which makes debugging C++ a pain in the ass, and the reason I sat bk> down and wrote this file. I consider gdb to be broken. Hopefully this bk> test case will facilitate a fix to the problem noted above. As far as I can tell, gdb is reporting what's actually in the executable file. 'test3' has one static member and no non-static members. So perhaps gcc is broken, but I don't understand your view that gdb is broken. Can you explain more? What do you *want* gdb to print here? > Errr. No, unless you expect everybody using gdb and C++ do to this as > well. In which case, you should put this in the FAQ. Okay, I'll forget about my 'refer' kludge. I thought that the 'refer' kludge was working around a side issue, but optimizing away the static data is the *main* issue for this test. So I should not work around it. Michael C