From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22598 invoked by alias); 15 Jul 2008 22:02:16 -0000 Received: (qmail 22588 invoked by uid 22791); 15 Jul 2008 22:02:15 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from NaN.false.org (HELO nan.false.org) (208.75.86.248) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Tue, 15 Jul 2008 22:01:56 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF5D698420; Tue, 15 Jul 2008 22:01:53 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 234409813B; Tue, 15 Jul 2008 22:01:53 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1KIsai-000537-8D; Tue, 15 Jul 2008 18:01:48 -0400 Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 22:02:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Stan Shebs Cc: Andreas Schwab , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Fix internal error in value_cast_pointers Message-ID: <20080715220148.GA19393@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Stan Shebs , Andreas Schwab , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <487D1C33.6020605@codesourcery.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <487D1C33.6020605@codesourcery.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2008-05-11) 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: 2008-07/txt/msg00330.txt.bz2 On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 02:52:51PM -0700, Stan Shebs wrote: > Andreas Schwab wrote: >> This patch fixes five regressions in bs15503.exp. value_ind has never >> returned a value whose type has typedefs stripped off (the type is >> always the direct target of the pointer type). Tested on ppc-linux. >> OK? >> > Do the regressions only happen on ppc or something? I just ran testsuite > on sources from a couple hours ago, on x86 linux, and bs15503 had no > failures. I think it is sensitive to the libstdc++ version - perhaps the typedef was added in GCC 4.3. I've been seeing the failure for a couple of weeks. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery