From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17673 invoked by alias); 4 Sep 2008 23:59:19 -0000 Received: (qmail 17665 invoked by uid 22791); 4 Sep 2008 23:59:18 -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; Thu, 04 Sep 2008 23:58:32 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B9772A970A; Thu, 4 Sep 2008 19:58:30 -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 gbIC7q+VJUuY; Thu, 4 Sep 2008 19:58:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 570102A96A7; Thu, 4 Sep 2008 19:58:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 6C754E7ACD; Fri, 5 Sep 2008 01:58:28 +0200 (CEST) Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2008 23:59:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Paul Pluzhnikov Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [patch] Fix for failing gdb.base/mips_pro.exp under gcc-4.3.1 Message-ID: <20080904235828.GA29631@adacore.com> References: <20080822002653.A73DF3A67DF@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080822002653.A73DF3A67DF@localhost> 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: 2008-09/txt/msg00083.txt.bz2 (sorry about the delay - it looks like everyone was very very busy this summer) > I could not find *why* optimization is necessary for that test case, > so don't know if disabling inlining is the correct fix :( Like Michael said, we have to assume the obvious, which is that they wanted to test unwinding of optimized code. > 2008-02-12 Paul Pluzhnikov > > *gdb.base/mips_pro.exp: compile with gcc -fno-inline, > lest gcc-4.3.1 optimizes the whole thing away. With that in mind, your patch makes sense. We want optimized code, but not that much optimization :). -- Joel