From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4645 invoked by alias); 14 Nov 2001 21:55:13 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.cygnus.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 4563 invoked from network); 14 Nov 2001 21:55:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO cygnus.com) (205.180.230.5) by sourceware.cygnus.com with SMTP; 14 Nov 2001 21:55:11 -0000 Received: from cygnus.com (totem.toronto.redhat.com [172.16.14.242]) by runyon.cygnus.com (8.8.7-cygnus/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA03101; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 13:55:02 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <3BF2E836.5DFA6015@cygnus.com> Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2001 15:04:00 -0000 From: Fernando Nasser Organization: Red Hat , Inc. - Toronto X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.3-12smp i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Michael Elizabeth Chastain CC: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, msnyder@cygnus.com, fnasser@redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA] New tests for 'const' and 'volatile' expressions References: <200111140354.VAA24497@duracef.shout.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2001-11/txt/msg00065.txt.bz2 Michael Elizabeth Chastain wrote: > > It goes down smoothly with my flock of compilers (gcc 2.95.3, gcc 3.0.2, > gcc gcc-3_0-branch, gcc HEAD). And when I run it on the 5.1 branch, > it does its job and gives FAILs. I think it's nifty. > Thanks for the tests! I wonder why there are failures... Isn't 5.1 after Michael Snyder's September changes? -- Fernando Nasser Red Hat - Toronto E-Mail: fnasser@redhat.com 2323 Yonge Street, Suite #300 Toronto, Ontario M4P 2C9