From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-29240-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 24202 invoked by alias); 9 Dec 2003 01:02:29 -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 24195 invoked from network); 9 Dec 2003 01:02:28 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 9 Dec 2003 01:02:28 -0000
Received: from int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (nat-pool-rdu-dmz.redhat.com [172.16.52.200] (may be forged))
	by mx1.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hB912R212064
	for <gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com>; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 20:02:27 -0500
Received: from potter.sfbay.redhat.com (potter.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.27.15])
	by int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hB912Qb18942;
	Mon, 8 Dec 2003 20:02:26 -0500
Received: from redhat.com (reddwarf.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.24.50])
	by potter.sfbay.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hB912P606599;
	Mon, 8 Dec 2003 17:02:25 -0800
Message-ID: <3FD51F21.6090708@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2003 01:02:00 -0000
From: Michael Snyder <msnyder@redhat.com>
Organization: Red Hat, Inc.
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Fred Fish <fnf@public.ninemoons.com>
CC: Andrew Cagney <cagney@gnu.org>, fnf@ninemoons.com,
   gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Outwit compiler dead code elimination in break.exp test
References: <200312011809.hB1I9ZJA030357@fred.ninemoons.com>
In-Reply-To: <200312011809.hB1I9ZJA030357@fred.ninemoons.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SW-Source: 2003-12/txt/msg00269.txt.bz2

Fred Fish wrote:
>>I know that GCC will now, when -O is specified, inline (and thence 
>>eliminate) pure functions.  However, I don't think that should occure 
>>when -O isn't specified.
> 
> 
> It doesn't.  The gdb specifically uses optimization for the test that
> is currently failing:
> 
>   FAIL: gdb.base/break.exp: run until breakpoint set at small function, optimized file


Ah.  And I was gonna say "GCC shouldn't do that without optimization 
turned on".  Never mind, I guess...