From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32727 invoked by alias); 4 Feb 2003 17:22:59 -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 32720 invoked from network); 4 Feb 2003 17:22:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO crack.them.org) (65.125.64.184) by 172.16.49.205 with SMTP; 4 Feb 2003 17:22:59 -0000 Received: from nevyn.them.org ([66.93.61.169] ident=mail) by crack.them.org with asmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 18g8fi-0008Rd-00 for ; Tue, 04 Feb 2003 13:23:54 -0600 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 18g6mh-0001SE-00 for ; Tue, 04 Feb 2003 12:22:59 -0500 Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2003 17:22:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [patch] KFAIL gdb/1025 Message-ID: <20030204172259.GA5546@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <20030204144415.GA30443@nevyn.them.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2003-02/txt/msg00119.txt.bz2 On Tue, Feb 04, 2003 at 09:16:57AM -0800, David Carlton wrote: > * I'm using the binutils that comes with Red Hat 7.3; rpm -q reports > it as binutils-2.11.93.0.2-11. So it's old. I'll upgrade that and > see what happens. (And then do what to the test? Turn it from > KFAIL into XFAIL, I suppose?) That depends on the nature of the failure. It might still be a KFAIL. > * I gave the wrong GDB version: I was using CVS GDB from yesterday. I > saw the FAILs using 'make check' on yesterday's CVS, but then I > investigated it using whatever GDB happened to be in /usr/local/bin > (which, if you're curious, is the current dictionary branch GDB, and > I haven't sync'd with mainline since whatever old date I listed). I > try to remember to use CVS GDB when investigating bugs, so I get the > date entered right, but sometimes I forget. > > And I have some other questions/comments: > > * If it's all due to binutils, why do Michael's tables still show some > non-PASS results with GCC 2.95.3/DWARF-2? > > * It's not the same as PR 872. That's about overload resolution; this > bug doesn't seem to be related to overload resolution. Oh, blah, my apologies. overload.exp has tests with almost the same names. If you could send me a compiled binary which does show the problem I'd appreciate that. Attach it to the PR maybe. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer