From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30582 invoked by alias); 9 Mar 2004 15:27:46 -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 30551 invoked from network); 9 Mar 2004 15:27:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO granger.mail.mindspring.net) (207.69.200.148) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 9 Mar 2004 15:27:45 -0000 Received: from user-119a90a.biz.mindspring.com ([66.149.36.10] helo=berman.michael-chastain.com) by granger.mail.mindspring.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 1B0j8f-0005yA-00; Tue, 09 Mar 2004 10:27:25 -0500 Received: by berman.michael-chastain.com (Postfix, from userid 502) id ADE394B104; Tue, 9 Mar 2004 10:27:36 -0500 (EST) To: drow@mvista.com, mec.gnu@mindspring.com Subject: Re: [RFC/RFA] gdb.cp/classes.exp: Don't try to print local variable out of scope Cc: carlton@kealia.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, vinschen@redhat.com Message-Id: <20040309152736.ADE394B104@berman.michael-chastain.com> Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 00:09:00 -0000 From: mec.gnu@mindspring.com (Michael Elizabeth Chastain) X-SW-Source: 2004-03/txt/msg00194.txt.bz2 mec> Is it okay for gcc to emit debug info that "i" is out of scope here? drow> I think so. It's unfortunate. Okay, that makes three people in favor of accepting this limited scoping from gcc 3.4, good enough for me. drow> Duplicate the file, then, since we've decided this is a bad practice? You're right, this is better. I was secretly hoping not to touch misc.cc at all, because as soon as I go to touch it, I have to add a proper copyright notice, and then re-test with all the *.exp anyways. I'd better get to work. Michael C From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30582 invoked by alias); 9 Mar 2004 15:27:46 -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 30551 invoked from network); 9 Mar 2004 15:27:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO granger.mail.mindspring.net) (207.69.200.148) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 9 Mar 2004 15:27:45 -0000 Received: from user-119a90a.biz.mindspring.com ([66.149.36.10] helo=berman.michael-chastain.com) by granger.mail.mindspring.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 1B0j8f-0005yA-00; Tue, 09 Mar 2004 10:27:25 -0500 Received: by berman.michael-chastain.com (Postfix, from userid 502) id ADE394B104; Tue, 9 Mar 2004 10:27:36 -0500 (EST) To: drow@mvista.com, mec.gnu@mindspring.com Subject: Re: [RFC/RFA] gdb.cp/classes.exp: Don't try to print local variable out of scope Cc: carlton@kealia.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, vinschen@redhat.com Message-ID: <20040309152736.ADE394B104@berman.michael-chastain.com> Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2004 15:27:00 -0000 From: mec.gnu@mindspring.com (Michael Elizabeth Chastain) X-SW-Source: 2004-03.o/txt/msg00194.txt Message-ID: <20040309152700.iN6FxCwJxXBpNCog9TEZMCbVL87ckRnelRS6EFGZs7M@z> mec> Is it okay for gcc to emit debug info that "i" is out of scope here? drow> I think so. It's unfortunate. Okay, that makes three people in favor of accepting this limited scoping from gcc 3.4, good enough for me. drow> Duplicate the file, then, since we've decided this is a bad practice? You're right, this is better. I was secretly hoping not to touch misc.cc at all, because as soon as I go to touch it, I have to add a proper copyright notice, and then re-test with all the *.exp anyways. I'd better get to work. Michael C