From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8240 invoked by alias); 7 Apr 2009 21:26:41 -0000 Received: (qmail 8228 invoked by uid 22791); 7 Apr 2009 21:26:40 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,J_CHICKENPOX_93,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx2.redhat.com (HELO mx2.redhat.com) (66.187.237.31) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 07 Apr 2009 21:26:33 +0000 Received: from int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (int-mx2.corp.redhat.com [172.16.27.26]) by mx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n37LOS9p002084; Tue, 7 Apr 2009 17:24:28 -0400 Received: from ns3.rdu.redhat.com (ns3.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.255.199]) by int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id n37LOTZ1023187; Tue, 7 Apr 2009 17:24:29 -0400 Received: from lindt.uglyboxes.com (sebastian-int.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.221]) by ns3.rdu.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n37LOOPj003574; Tue, 7 Apr 2009 17:24:26 -0400 Message-ID: <49DBC487.9080206@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 07 Apr 2009 21:26:00 -0000 From: Keith Seitz User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (X11/20090320) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Pedro Alves CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFC] Special casing dtors? References: <49CAB139.8010100@redhat.com> <200903301658.16807.pedro@codesourcery.com> <49D3FCC9.7090505@redhat.com> <200904072154.45602.pedro@codesourcery.com> In-Reply-To: <200904072154.45602.pedro@codesourcery.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2009-04/txt/msg00136.txt.bz2 Pedro Alves wrote: > Since this stabs patch in now in HEAD, I've redone the testing. I > confirm that with this patch installed, your original patch doesn't > introduce any new failures on the templates.exp test on > stabs --- gcc 4.2, or head. Yay! Phew! I was (really) worried there for a moment! :-) >> PS. I still don't understand how you are getting DWARF2 failures. I've >> run these tests on gcc 4.2.0, 4.2.4, 4.3.2, and 4.4.0, and NONE of those >> compilers demonstrate any failures after the patch; they all fail BEFORE >> the patch is applied. I guess I'll deal with this next. > > This must be a miscomunication. I never said I was getting DWARF > failures. I just re-confirmed that your original patch does remove > the dtors kfail in templates.exp on dwarf. Ok, I must have misread your message -- my mind was quite overtaxed with all the testing and running through the debug info and whatnot whilst working on evaluating the stabs problems. Once again, thank you for taking the time to investigate this so thoroughly. Keith