From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32610 invoked by alias); 17 Mar 2004 19:16:27 -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 32602 invoked from network); 17 Mar 2004 19:16:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hawaii.kealia.com) (209.3.10.89) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 17 Mar 2004 19:16:26 -0000 Received: by hawaii.kealia.com (Postfix, from userid 2049) id AC5FCC6CF; Wed, 17 Mar 2004 11:16:25 -0800 (PST) To: mec.gnu@mindspring.com (Michael Elizabeth Chastain) Cc: eliz@gnu.org, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [rfa/doco] PROBLEMS: add regressions since gdb 6.0 References: <20040317185528.87D7A4B104@berman.michael-chastain.com> From: David Carlton Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 19:16:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20040317185528.87D7A4B104@berman.michael-chastain.com> (Michael Elizabeth Chastain's message of "Wed, 17 Mar 2004 13:55:28 -0500 (EST)") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.1002 (Gnus v5.10.2) XEmacs/21.4 (Reasonable Discussion, linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2004-03.o/txt/msg00398.txt Message-ID: <20040317191600.pNV3LnYiA_NT7L67RXWCwbZsOPioPERkZe1vmN89ixs@z> On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 13:55:28 -0500 (EST), mec.gnu@mindspring.com (Michael Elizabeth Chastain) said: mec> gdb/826: variables in C++ namespaces have to be enclosed in quotes mec> mec> When referring to a variable in C++ code that is inside a mec> namespace, you have to put it inside single quotes. dc> This is only true in rare circumstances, and it was always true in dc> versions before 6.1! So whatever it might be, it's not a regression. dc> (Hmm: I should probably close that bug report, since it should largely dc> be fixed by now.) > This test case works with gdb 6.0 and it does not work with gdb > gdb-6_1-branch. > # gdb 6.0, gcc 3.3.3, -gstabs+ > (gdb) print (ClassWithEnum::PrivEnum) 42 > $26 = yellow > PASS: gdb.cp/classes.exp: print (ClassWithEnum::PrivEnum) 42 > # gdb gdb-6_1-branch, gcc 3.3.3, -gstabs+ > (gdb) print (ClassWithEnum::PrivEnum) 42 > A syntax error in expression, near `42'. > KFAIL: gdb.cp/classes.exp: print (ClassWithEnum::PrivEnum) 42 (PRMS: gdb/826) > Actually, the word 'variable' is funny, because > ClassWithEnum::PrivEnum is a type, not a variable. But that's what > the test script calls this problem. And it's definitely a > regression. I don't think that looking for KFAILs is a good way to identify whether or not a specific PR is a regression. In this particular instance, if you go to your table comparing 6.0 suite HEAD to 6.1 suite HEAD and, for example, look at the third column (GCC 3.3.3, DWARF-2), you'll see a whole bunch of FAIL=>PASS transitions. And a _lot_ of them have to do with this bug being fixed: this is fairly obvious in situations where, with GCC 6.0, "print 'AAA::c'" passes but "print AAA::c" fails, but there are also examples further down where there is no test using single quotes and where, if you did use single quotes, you'd get unexpected output. So I think the testsuite regression=>PR+description transition should involve some more steps - the corresponding PR may be much broader than the particular testsuite regression, and some of those broader areas may involve situations where GDB has improved rather than regressed. David Carlton carlton@kealia.com