Re: [rfa] delete 'force_return' from lookup_symbol_aux_minsyms

[Michael Elizabeth Chastain <mec@shout.net>]

Elena Z wrote:

> I am not sure if David committed it yet, but the patch it at the
> bottom of:
> http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2002-12/msg00560.html
> Maybe you already tested it!

I am having some problems analyzing this.  I see 3 regressions from
2002-12-18 to 2002-12-21, but I can't tell if they are gcc problems
or gdb problems.

I've got one set of runs with:

  gdb HEAD 2002-12-18
  gcc HEAD 2002-12-18

And another set of runs with:

  gdb HEAD 2002-12-21
  gcc HEAD 2002-12-21

It would be great if I kept the install directories from 2002-12-18
for a few days, but I already recycled the disk space.  :(  I do have
all the executable files from gdb/testsuite though, so I can try the
new gdb on all the executables built with gcc HEAD 2002-12-18.

For the curious, the 3 regressions are:

(1) gcc ICE when compiling gdb.c++/anon-union.exp with gcc HEAD 2002-12-21.
    and dwarf-2.  This is obviously a gcc problem and I will follow the
    gcc reporting procedures for it.  I think the problem is related to
    the special status of C++ "main", which must be return type int,
    but are not required to return a value (the compiler is required to
    synthesize a value if control falls off the end, which is special
    code in gcc, which has problems getting the debug information right).

(2) New problems near the end of gdb.c++/anon-union.exp with gcc HEAD
    and stabs+.  Probably gcc, might be gdb (unlikely).

(3) Problems with gdb.c++/casts.exp.

I'll go do some QA sleuthing and file bug reports and stuff.

Michael C