From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18611 invoked by alias); 7 Apr 2009 20:54:26 -0000 Received: (qmail 18603 invoked by uid 22791); 7 Apr 2009 20:54:26 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,J_CHICKENPOX_93,SPF_PASS 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; Tue, 07 Apr 2009 20:54:20 +0000 Received: (qmail 15761 invoked from network); 7 Apr 2009 20:54:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO orlando.local) (pedro@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 7 Apr 2009 20:54:14 -0000 From: Pedro Alves To: Keith Seitz Subject: Re: [RFC] Special casing dtors? Date: Tue, 07 Apr 2009 20:54:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.10 Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <49CAB139.8010100@redhat.com> <200903301658.16807.pedro@codesourcery.com> <49D3FCC9.7090505@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <49D3FCC9.7090505@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200904072154.45602.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: 2009-04/txt/msg00135.txt.bz2 On Thursday 02 April 2009 00:46:17, Keith Seitz wrote: > Can you apply the attached patch to your tree and try again? Since this stabs patch in now in HEAD, I've redone the testing. I confirm that with this patch installed, your original patch doesn't introduce any new failures on the templates.exp test on stabs --- gcc 4.2, or head. Yay! > So, I guess my position is that since stabs is so darn broken any way, > we might as well apply the patch and deal with the fallout. At least > then we'll know (and hopefully document) WHY all this special casing of > dtors is necessary. On my end, your original patch is clear to go in. > PS. I still don't understand how you are getting DWARF2 failures. I've > run these tests on gcc 4.2.0, 4.2.4, 4.3.2, and 4.4.0, and NONE of those > compilers demonstrate any failures after the patch; they all fail BEFORE > the patch is applied. I guess I'll deal with this next. This must be a miscomunication. I never said I was getting DWARF failures. I just re-confirmed that your original patch does remove the dtors kfail in templates.exp on dwarf. -KFAIL: gdb.cp/templates.exp: destructor breakpoint (PRMS: gdb/1112) +PASS: gdb.cp/templates.exp: destructor breakpoint -- Pedro Alves