From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4494 invoked by alias); 25 Apr 2003 02:23:30 -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 4487 invoked from network); 25 Apr 2003 02:23:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO crack.them.org) (65.125.64.184) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 25 Apr 2003 02:23:30 -0000 Received: from nevyn.them.org ([66.93.61.169] ident=mail) by crack.them.org with asmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 198ssL-0001Z0-00; Thu, 24 Apr 2003 21:23:45 -0500 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 198ss4-0002tg-00; Thu, 24 Apr 2003 22:23:28 -0400 Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 05:32:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Andrew Cagney Cc: Keith Seitz , "gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com" Subject: Re: [RFA] varobj: call CHECK_TYPEDEF Message-ID: <20030425022327.GA11104@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Andrew Cagney , Keith Seitz , "gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com" References: <1051215397.1538.43.camel@lindt.uglyboxes.com> <3EA84A9B.5020308@redhat.com> <1051221433.1534.72.camel@lindt.uglyboxes.com> <3EA8629B.50603@redhat.com> <1051223376.1538.74.camel@lindt.uglyboxes.com> <20030425002942.GB9492@nevyn.them.org> <3EA89A2A.4010009@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3EA89A2A.4010009@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2003-04/txt/msg00486.txt.bz2 On Thu, Apr 24, 2003 at 10:15:06PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote: > >On Thu, Apr 24, 2003 at 03:29:36PM -0700, Keith Seitz wrote: > > > >>On Thu, 2003-04-24 at 15:18, Andrew Cagney wrote: > > > >>> BTW, does ... > >>> > >>> struct t > >>> { > >>> int a; > >>> int b; > >>> }; > >>> > >>> typedef struct t T; > >>> > >>> main() > >>> { > >>> static T v = {...}; > >>> } > >>> > >>> tickle it? > > > >> > >>Nope, that works properly (except for it being reported as "struct t" > >>instead of "T"). > > > > > >[Keith, you had "test for insight/792" in your posted testsuite patch.] > > > >There's at least one compiler bug in this area, where DWARF-2 debug info > >will say struct t instead of T. I fixed it for 3.3 and (I think?) > >3.2.3. Just in case you start getting confused :) > > So, rather than `bug', `probable gcc bug'? Depends, I imagine GDB has bugs here too. Someone should try Keith's testcase with a fixed GCC I suppose. (If your compiler has the bug it will show up in the MI testsuite already; don't remember exactly where.) -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer