From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18964 invoked by alias); 6 Dec 2002 22:08:35 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 18957 invoked from network); 6 Dec 2002 22:08:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (216.138.202.10) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 6 Dec 2002 22:08:34 -0000 Received: from redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A70A3E2A; Fri, 6 Dec 2002 17:08:26 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3DF11FD9.9060304@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2002 15:54:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney 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 Cc: Fernando Nasser , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, Daniel Jacobowitz Subject: Re: [rfa] store.exp failures References: <3DEFEC76.6040109@redhat.com> <3DF0FC7C.6050209@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-12/txt/msg00239.txt.bz2 > On Fri, 06 Dec 2002 14:37:32 -0500, Andrew Cagney 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.) BTW, what makes you think the test is delicate? The code is valid C and the command: (gdb) set variable u = s_1 is valid in GDB's CLI. If it doesn't work, its a bug. Andrew