From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30515 invoked by alias); 4 Nov 2010 18:23:57 -0000 Received: (qmail 30505 invoked by uid 22791); 4 Nov 2010 18:23:55 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 04 Nov 2010 18:23:50 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 502A12BACE4; Thu, 4 Nov 2010 14:23:49 -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 Wn65iRng38Jp; Thu, 4 Nov 2010 14:23:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10EA82BACDB; Thu, 4 Nov 2010 14:23:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 6AD98F588F; Thu, 4 Nov 2010 11:23:46 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2010 18:23:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Jan Kratochvil Cc: Ken Werner , Tom Tromey , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Regression on gdb.ada/null_array.exp [Re: [patch] DW_AT_byte_size for array type entries] Message-ID: <20101104182346.GH2445@adacore.com> References: <201010192016.05535.ken@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <201011031522.50715.ken@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20101103190935.GA8853@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> <20101103232401.GD2445@adacore.com> <20101104003049.GA26198@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> <20101104015714.GE2445@adacore.com> <20101104032535.GA17310@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> <20101104180047.GF2445@adacore.com> <20101104180956.GA8587@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20101104180956.GA8587@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) 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: 2010-11/txt/msg00092.txt.bz2 > > I don't think we can restore the original (lucky) behavior without > > breaking the intent of Ken's patch. > > OK, so could you XFAIL it? <=gcc-4.4 or the missing ___XA type are both fine > IMO. I will do it otherwise. I would do it, normally, but I think it's easier if you do it, because I would not be able to test the XFAIL case. > > > BTW local FSF GCC 4.4.x rebuild should also make it IMO reproducible. > > > > Do the most recent compilers trigger the regresions as well? > > No. That's good news. Things will get even better as soon as the descriptive-type patch gets in GCC. -- Joel