From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19787 invoked by alias); 8 Dec 2009 21:27:19 -0000 Received: (qmail 19776 invoked by uid 22791); 8 Dec 2009 21:27:17 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 08 Dec 2009 21:27:12 +0000 Received: from int-mx03.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx03.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.16]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id nB8LR2Ah002922 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 8 Dec 2009 16:27:03 -0500 Received: from [IPv6:::1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx03.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id nB8LQvCq018227 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 8 Dec 2009 16:27:01 -0500 Message-ID: <4B1EC4A1.8050704@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 08 Dec 2009 21:27:00 -0000 From: Keith Seitz User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.1.4pre) Gecko/20091014 Fedora/3.0-2.8.b4.fc11 Lightning/1.0pre Thunderbird/3.0b4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Pedro Alves CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFA 1/3] dwarf2_physname - cpexprs.exp References: <4B070525.4030107@redhat.com> <200911210520.45772.pedro@codesourcery.com> In-Reply-To: <200911210520.45772.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: 2009-12/txt/msg00123.txt.bz2 On 11/20/2009 09:20 PM, Pedro Alves wrote: > FAIL: gdb.cp/cpexprs.exp: print policyd4::policyd > FAIL: gdb.cp/cpexprs.exp: print policyd >::policyd > FAIL: gdb.cp/cpexprs.exp: list base::overload(base&) const > FAIL: gdb.cp/cpexprs.exp: list base::overload(char*) const > FAIL: gdb.cp/cpexprs.exp: list base::overload(int) const > FAIL: gdb.cp/cpexprs.exp: list base::overload(long) const > FAIL: gdb.cp/cpexprs.exp: list base::overload(short) const > FAIL: gdb.cp/cpexprs.exp: list base::overload(void) const > FAIL: gdb.cp/cpexprs.exp: list policyd4::policyd > FAIL: gdb.cp/cpexprs.exp: list policyd >::policyd > FAIL: gdb.cp/cpexprs.exp: setting breakpoint at base::overload(base&) const > FAIL: gdb.cp/cpexprs.exp: continue to base::overload(base&) const > FAIL: gdb.cp/cpexprs.exp: setting breakpoint at base::overload(char*) const > FAIL: gdb.cp/cpexprs.exp: continue to base::overload(char*) const > FAIL: gdb.cp/cpexprs.exp: setting breakpoint at base::overload(int) const > FAIL: gdb.cp/cpexprs.exp: continue to base::overload(int) const > FAIL: gdb.cp/cpexprs.exp: setting breakpoint at base::overload(long) const > FAIL: gdb.cp/cpexprs.exp: continue to base::overload(long) const > FAIL: gdb.cp/cpexprs.exp: setting breakpoint at base::overload(short) const > FAIL: gdb.cp/cpexprs.exp: continue to base::overload(short) const > FAIL: gdb.cp/cpexprs.exp: setting breakpoint at base::overload(void) const > FAIL: gdb.cp/cpexprs.exp: continue to base::overload(void) const > FAIL: gdb.cp/cpexprs.exp: setting breakpoint at policyd4::policyd > FAIL: gdb.cp/cpexprs.exp: continue to policyd4::policyd > FAIL: gdb.cp/cpexprs.exp: setting breakpoint at policyd >::policyd > FAIL: gdb.cp/cpexprs.exp: continue to policyd >::policyd > > I've no idea if this is compiler badness or not. I haven't investigated. With FSF GCC 4.2.4, the only failures I see are the policyd4-related ones. I suspect that this might be caused by the valops.c assumption that Daniel recently corrected (my bad): 2009-12-04 Daniel Jacobowitz * valops.c (value_struct_elt_for_reference): Do not rely on field order. > I also saw 1 FAIL->PASS in classes.exp, 2 new PASS->FAILs and 2 new FAIL->PASSes > in namespace.exp. We've already established the namespace.exp status, so what remains is the new PASS in classes.exp, which I'm guessing is not a problem. :-) Keith