From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32231 invoked by alias); 23 Sep 2007 01:17:30 -0000 Received: (qmail 32220 invoked by uid 22791); 23 Sep 2007 01:17:28 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Sun, 23 Sep 2007 01:17:27 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D62B2AA9BB; Sat, 22 Sep 2007 21:17:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id Xbj7JqccMCaI; Sat, 22 Sep 2007 21:17:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4298D2AA9AB; Sat, 22 Sep 2007 21:17:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 33797E7B58; Sat, 22 Sep 2007 18:17:23 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2007 01:17:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Pedro Alves , Pierre Muller , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFC] Stabs parsing regression from GDB 6.6 to GDB 6.6.90 Message-ID: <20070923011723.GF3963@adacore.com> References: <000e01c7fb9b$22e600f0$68b202d0$@u-strasbg.fr> <000601c7fc25$98110430$c8330c90$@u-strasbg.fr> <46F486B4.6050900@portugalmail.pt> <46F56F04.6070601@portugalmail.pt> <20070922225808.GD3963@adacore.com> <20070922230806.GA30487@caradoc.them.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070922230806.GA30487@caradoc.them.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i 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: 2007-09/txt/msg00321.txt.bz2 > There is already a gdb.stabs directory. The question is how to > verify that GDB did the right thing... I was thinking that not having the error that was originially reported would a good first step. If we could simply store the assembly file produced by Pierre's example and then verify that "ptype u" works... But now that I actually tried Pierre's example, I get no error at all, even after having verified that I do get an @s64-etc stabs. I'm not sure why... -- Joel