From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-24084-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 27239 invoked by alias); 25 Apr 2003 02:15:10 -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 26637 invoked from network); 25 Apr 2003 02:15:09 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (66.30.197.194)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 25 Apr 2003 02:15:09 -0000
Received: from redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id E995D2B2F; Thu, 24 Apr 2003 22:15:06 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <3EA89A2A.4010009@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 03:47:00 -0000
From: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20030223
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com>
Cc: Keith Seitz <keiths@redhat.com>,
	"gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com" <gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFA] varobj: call CHECK_TYPEDEF
References: <1051215397.1538.43.camel@lindt.uglyboxes.com> <3EA84A9B.5020308@redhat.com> <1051221433.1534.72.camel@lindt.uglyboxes.com> <3EA8629B.50603@redhat.com> <1051223376.1538.74.camel@lindt.uglyboxes.com> <20030425002942.GB9492@nevyn.them.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SW-Source: 2003-04/txt/msg00485.txt.bz2

> On Thu, Apr 24, 2003 at 03:29:36PM -0700, Keith Seitz wrote:
> 
>> On Thu, 2003-04-24 at 15:18, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> 
>> > BTW, does ...
>> > 
>> > struct t
>> > {
>> >    int a;
>> >    int b;
>> > };
>> > 
>> > typedef struct t T;
>> > 
>> > main()
>> > {
>> >    static T v = {...};
>> > }
>> > 
>> > tickle it?
> 
>> 
>> Nope, that works properly (except for it being reported as "struct t"
>> instead of "T").
> 
> 
> [Keith, you had "test for insight/792" in your posted testsuite patch.]
> 
> There's at least one compiler bug in this area, where DWARF-2 debug info
> will say struct t instead of T.  I fixed it for 3.3 and (I think?)
> 3.2.3.  Just in case you start getting confused :)

So, rather than `bug', `probable gcc bug'?

Andrew