From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24755 invoked by alias); 28 Jan 2007 17:52:56 -0000 Received: (qmail 24746 invoked by uid 22791); 28 Jan 2007 17:52:55 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from nevyn.them.org (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31.1) with ESMTP; Sun, 28 Jan 2007 17:52:51 +0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1HBECu-0004fs-R6; Sun, 28 Jan 2007 12:52:48 -0500 Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 17:52:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Mark Kettenis Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [ob] Adjust member pointer test for g++ 3.3 Message-ID: <20070128175248.GA17887@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Mark Kettenis , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20070112201706.GA2673@nevyn.them.org> <200701122150.l0CLoRue029795@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <20070112230803.GB7039@nevyn.them.org> <200701281539.l0SFdxiq013153@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <20070128171134.GA15012@nevyn.them.org> <200701281750.l0SHo5m1025254@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200701281750.l0SHo5m1025254@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2007-01/txt/msg00573.txt.bz2 On Sun, Jan 28, 2007 at 06:50:05PM +0100, Mark Kettenis wrote: > > Hmm... how much of a hack do you think it's worth? :-) It's definitely > > possible. > > > > The problem is that this is a perfectly legitimate piece of debug > > output, describing "int A::**" instead of "int A::*". We could > > recognize this problem based on string matching the DW_AT_producer; > > I have added precedents for that before. I don't see any other way > > of doing it. > > I don't really care; ok if I xfail those tests for GCC 3.3.x? 3.4.x > seems to be fine. Did you test things on some other GCC versions? That's fine with me. I believe I tested a 3.4.x gcc and a 4.1.x. > Oops, for some reason I thought this was a new test. Anyway, the > failure modes are probably completely different after your code > changes, so removing them is probably the most sensible thing to do. It actually was originally an HP aCC test. You're right - I should delete the kfails, although I have honestly no idea what the test will do for stabs. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery