From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24304 invoked by alias); 27 Mar 2009 17:34:59 -0000 Received: (qmail 24294 invoked by uid 22791); 27 Mar 2009 17:34:58 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,J_CHICKENPOX_93,SPF_PASS,WEIRD_PORT X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (65.74.133.4) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 17:34:53 +0000 Received: (qmail 13001 invoked from network); 27 Mar 2009 17:34:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO orlando) (pedro@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 27 Mar 2009 17:34:50 -0000 From: Pedro Alves To: Keith Seitz Subject: Re: [RFC] Special casing dtors? Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 17:49:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.10 Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <49CAB139.8010100@redhat.com> <200903271439.40901.pedro@codesourcery.com> <49CD099F.9040009@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <49CD099F.9040009@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200903271734.56216.pedro@codesourcery.com> 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: 2009-03/txt/msg00636.txt.bz2 On Friday 27 March 2009 17:15:11, Keith Seitz wrote: > Pedro Alves wrote: > > > I regtested the whole testsuite with stabs on x86_64-linux, and > > got this with your patch: > > > > -PASS: gdb.cp/templates.exp: destructor breakpoint > > -PASS: gdb.cp/templates.exp: value method breakpoint > > +FAIL: gdb.cp/templates.exp: destructor_breakpoint (timeout) > > +FAIL: gdb.cp/templates.exp: value method breakpoint > > To be clear: You are getting two new FAILs with the patch? That would be > baffling -- I don't see how the templates.exp test "destructor > breakpoint" could pass on anything using gcc. Yes, the patch causes the FAILs. The test passes on a pristine GDB. Here's the relevant gdb.log diff: break T5::~T5 -Breakpoint 2 at 0x804933d: file ../../../src/gdb/testsuite/gdb.cp/templates.cc, line 478. -(gdb) PASS: gdb.cp/templates.exp: destructor breakpoint +[0] cancel +[1] all +[2] T5::~T5() at ../../../src/gdb/testsuite/gdb.cp/templates.cc:478 +[3] T5::~T5() at ../../../src/gdb/testsuite/gdb.cp/templates.cc:478 +> FAIL: gdb.cp/templates.exp: destructor_breakpoint (timeout) break T5::value -Breakpoint 3 at 0x8049359: file ../../../src/gdb/testsuite/gdb.cp/templates.cc, line 493. -(gdb) PASS: gdb.cp/templates.exp: value method breakpoint +Arguments must be choice numbers. +(gdb) FAIL: gdb.cp/templates.exp: value method breakpoint Looks like GDB thinks there are two destructor instances in T5. I just confirmed this on x86-linux, to remove 64-bit out of the picture. -- Pedro Alves