From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17163 invoked by alias); 24 Feb 2003 04:35:34 -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 17155 invoked from network); 24 Feb 2003 04:35:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO duracef.shout.net) (204.253.184.12) by 172.16.49.205 with SMTP; 24 Feb 2003 04:35:33 -0000 Received: (from mec@localhost) by duracef.shout.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h1O4ZVb07087; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 22:35:31 -0600 Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 04:35:00 -0000 From: Michael Elizabeth Chastain Message-Id: <200302240435.h1O4ZVb07087@duracef.shout.net> To: drow@mvista.com Subject: Re: [rfa] new test, pr-1090.exp, multi-register variables Cc: fnasser@redhat.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com X-SW-Source: 2003-02/txt/msg00570.txt.bz2 drow> You may want to see gdb/214. I looked. Ouch! To my mind, these are critical bugs, because gdb quietly prints the wrong information. If we can't fix it for 5.4/6.0 then I want to add gdb/214 and gdb/1090 to the PROBLEMS file. Meanwhile, what do you think of adding my new test to the test suite? Michael C