From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5691 invoked by alias); 18 Feb 2011 20:58:58 -0000 Received: (qmail 5682 invoked by uid 22791); 18 Feb 2011 20:58:57 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 18 Feb 2011 20:58:51 +0000 Received: from int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.25]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p1IKwSVq015284 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 18 Feb 2011 15:58:28 -0500 Received: from host1.dyn.jankratochvil.net (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p1IKwOKu027562 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 18 Feb 2011 15:58:27 -0500 Received: from host1.dyn.jankratochvil.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by host1.dyn.jankratochvil.net (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p1IKwNAK001685; Fri, 18 Feb 2011 21:58:23 +0100 Received: (from jkratoch@localhost) by host1.dyn.jankratochvil.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) id p1IKwNhk001684; Fri, 18 Feb 2011 21:58:23 +0100 Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2011 21:02:00 -0000 From: Jan Kratochvil To: Joel Brobecker Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [commit/Ada] Fix unconstrained packed array size Message-ID: <20110218205823.GA1001@host1.dyn.jankratochvil.net> References: <1297925036-2762-1-git-send-email-brobecker@adacore.com> <20110217215803.GA30633@host1.dyn.jankratochvil.net> <20110218032426.GF15527@adacore.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110218032426.GF15527@adacore.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) 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: 2011-02/txt/msg00500.txt.bz2 On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 04:24:26 +0100, Joel Brobecker wrote: > I was afraid something like that might happen. I am pretty sure > it is another one of these where the compiler is emitting incomplete > debugging info (it works for me). I expected something like that. In such case there should be XFAIL (or maybe a different pseudo-FAIL variant but XFAIL seems OK to me) like we did in: Re: Regression on gdb.ada/null_array.exp [Re: [patch] DW_AT_byte_size for array type entries] http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2010-11/msg00093.html Could you best describe the difference - probably in readelf -wi output - that can be checked by the .exp file for XFAIL? > In the meantime, I still think it's worthwhile for the community > if I add testcases whenever I can. Yes, I find that part fine when we do not necessarily even increase the number of FAILs messing up all the various testsuite cross-checks. Thanks, Jan