From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-20750-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 11886 invoked by alias); 6 Dec 2002 21:55:46 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sources.redhat.com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com
Received: (qmail 11876 invoked from network); 6 Dec 2002 21:55:43 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (216.138.202.10)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 6 Dec 2002 21:55:43 -0000
Received: from redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id BEA6C3E2A; Fri,  6 Dec 2002 16:55:34 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <3DF11CD6.8010407@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2002 14:08:00 -0000
From: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:1.0.0) Gecko/20020824
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: David Carlton <carlton@math.stanford.edu>
Cc: Fernando Nasser <fnasser@redhat.com>,
	gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com>
Subject: Re: [rfa] store.exp failures
References: <ro165u82glv.fsf@jackfruit.Stanford.EDU>	<3DEFEC76.6040109@redhat.com> <ro1r8cvuev2.fsf@jackfruit.Stanford.EDU>	<3DF0FC7C.6050209@redhat.com> <ro1bs3yvs1f.fsf@jackfruit.Stanford.EDU>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SW-Source: 2002-12/txt/msg00238.txt.bz2

> On Fri, 06 Dec 2002 14:37:32 -0500, Andrew Cagney <ac131313@redhat.com> said:
> 
> 
>> Thanks.  In case you're wondering, yes it does pass but with older
>> compilers.
> 
> 
> Do you see the two failures with GCC 2.95.3 that I see, by the way?
> They're
> 
> FAIL: gdb.base/store.exp: new up struct 1
> FAIL: gdb.base/store.exp: new up struct 2
> 
> I don't know if they're our fault or GCC's fault.  (Or even nobody's
> fault: the test seems a bit delicate.)

On a powerpc:

Running /home/scratch/GDB/src/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/store.exp ...

                 === gdb Summary ===

# of expected passes            204

ac131313@nettle$ gcc --version
2.95.3

And on a Red Hat 7,2 system:

Running /home/cagney/GDB/src/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/store.exp ...

                 === gdb Summary ===

# of expected passes            204

cagney@torrens$ gcc --version
2.96

>> I'm also wondering of GCC eliminating functions when -O0 is a bug.
> 
> 
> Yeah, I wondered about that, too: it's not going to make our lives any
> easier if GCC continues doing this...

Asked a GCC engineer.  They agreed, at -O0, it shouldn't be eliminating 
static functions.

Andrew