From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30401 invoked by alias); 12 Sep 2012 19:59:09 -0000 Received: (qmail 30393 invoked by uid 22791); 12 Sep 2012 19:59:08 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS 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; Wed, 12 Sep 2012 19:58:50 +0000 Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q8CJwobS026987 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Wed, 12 Sep 2012 15:58:50 -0400 Received: from host2.jankratochvil.net (ovpn-116-25.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.25]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q8CJwk8L022983 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 12 Sep 2012 15:58:48 -0400 Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 19:59:00 -0000 From: Jan Kratochvil To: Keith Seitz Cc: "gdb-patches@sourceware.org ml" Subject: Re: Testsuite regression gdb.cp/converts.exp [Re: [RFA] gdb/13483] Message-ID: <20120912195845.GA16888@host2.jankratochvil.net> References: <5041274D.1050508@redhat.com> <87ehm9evyb.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <504E2438.6020701@redhat.com> <20120911054549.GA25093@host2.jankratochvil.net> <5050E4A4.2080600@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5050E4A4.2080600@redhat.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: 2012-09/txt/msg00226.txt.bz2 On Wed, 12 Sep 2012 21:38:12 +0200, Keith Seitz wrote: > On 09/10/2012 10:45 PM, Jan Kratochvil wrote: > >on CentOS-5: > > > > Running gdb/testsuite/gdb.cp/converts.exp ... > >-PASS: gdb.cp/converts.exp: continue to breakpoint: end of main > >[...] > >-PASS: gdb.cp/converts.exp: p foo3_2 (1,1) > >+gdb compile failed, gdb/testsuite/gdb.cp/converts.cc: In function 'int main()': > >+gdb/testsuite/gdb.cp/converts.cc:81: warning: the address of 'int foo1_7(bool)', will always evaluate as 'true' > >+UNTESTED: gdb.cp/converts.exp: converts.exp > > My guess is an older compiler. Since none of these function calls is > really necessary (well, one probably is necessary to make sure > foo1_7 isn't optimized away), I propose just deleting the offending > line. Yes, I agree. Although rather to replace it in .c by an explanatory comment like /* .exp file contains line gdb_test "p foo1_7(&foo1_7)" " = 17" which is not compiled here for verification as older GCCs (~4.1) fail the compilation due to: warning: the address of 'int foo1_7(bool)', will always evaluate as 'true' */ Thanks, Jan