Re: [patch] KFAIL gdb/1025

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

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2387 bytes --]

Oh man, this issue is "Time Sink of the Day" for 2003-02-04.
I'm gonna drop out of the KFAIL philosophy discussion.

David C points out:

  * 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

Before anything else, check the gdb.log file which has the broken
results and check the gdb banner when gdb starts up, so we can get
the "2002-12-23" facet off the table.

  * It's not the same as PR 872.  That's about overload resolution; this
    bug doesn't seem to be related to overload resolution.

You are right.  PR 872 is in 'overload.exp'.  This bug manifests
in 'ovldbreak.exp'.  I confuse the two a lot.  (It was bad design to
have one file name be a subset of the other.)

  * 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?

Hmmm.  I confess I am wrong that it is *all* binutils.  Now I think
there is a binutils component, but then there is a second bug on top of
that which is not analyzed yet.

Let me have a look at my FAILs:

  # target=native, host=i686-pc-linux-gnu, osversion=red-hat-8.0
  # gdb=5.3, gcc=2.95.3, binutils=2.13.2.1, libc=2.2.93-5-rh
  # gformat=dwarf-2
  Breakpoint 24, 0x080495a2 in foo::overload1arg (this=0xbffff7c4, arg=-65 '¿') at
  /berman/migchain/source/gdb-5.3/gdb/testsuite/gdb.c++/ovldbreak.cc:111^M
  111     int foo::overload1arg (char arg)            { arg = 0; return 2;}^M
  (gdb) FAIL: gdb.c++/ovldbreak.exp: continue to bp overloaded : char

The test script wants to see 'arg=2' here, but gdb prints 'arg=-65'.
That's the bug.  It's definitely not not not gdb/872.

  * 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?)

If it fails with binutils 2.13.2.1, try binutils HEAD if you have enough
patience.  Then add more info to PR gdb/1025.

I will also dig into my test results and add info PR gdb/1025.

It's really hard to tell whether a bad result is a binutils bug or
a gdb bug.  I think Daniel J would have to look at it closely at
that point, because he knows both sides of the binutils/gdb interface.

Michael C