From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6402 invoked by alias); 4 Feb 2003 18:33:33 -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 6389 invoked from network); 4 Feb 2003 18:33:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO duracef.shout.net) (204.253.184.12) by 172.16.49.205 with SMTP; 4 Feb 2003 18:33:33 -0000 Received: (from mec@localhost) by duracef.shout.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h14IXUt18880; Tue, 4 Feb 2003 12:33:30 -0600 Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2003 18:33:00 -0000 From: Michael Elizabeth Chastain Message-Id: <200302041833.h14IXUt18880@duracef.shout.net> To: carlton@math.stanford.edu, drow@mvista.com Subject: Re: [patch] KFAIL gdb/1025 Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com X-SW-Source: 2003-02/txt/msg00127.txt.bz2 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