From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14900 invoked by alias); 3 Jul 2014 07:03:33 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 14883 invoked by uid 89); 3 Jul 2014 07:03:31 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: relay1.mentorg.com Received: from relay1.mentorg.com (HELO relay1.mentorg.com) (192.94.38.131) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Thu, 03 Jul 2014 07:03:29 +0000 Received: from svr-orw-exc-10.mgc.mentorg.com ([147.34.98.58]) by relay1.mentorg.com with esmtp id 1X2b3F-00019X-U1 from Luis_Gustavo@mentor.com for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2014 00:03:25 -0700 Received: from SVR-ORW-FEM-02.mgc.mentorg.com ([147.34.96.206]) by SVR-ORW-EXC-10.mgc.mentorg.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Thu, 3 Jul 2014 00:03:25 -0700 Received: from [172.30.72.218] (147.34.91.1) by svr-orw-fem-02.mgc.mentorg.com (147.34.96.168) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.2.247.3; Thu, 3 Jul 2014 00:02:25 -0700 Message-ID: <53B5003A.6070203@codesourcery.com> Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2014 07:03:00 -0000 From: Luis Machado Reply-To: User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Yao Qi , "'gdb-patches@sourceware.org'" Subject: Re: [RFC] gdb.base/frame-args.exp References: <53B26994.8000306@codesourcery.com> <53B4FBE6.20505@codesourcery.com> In-Reply-To: <53B4FBE6.20505@codesourcery.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2014-07/txt/msg00044.txt.bz2 Hi Yao, On 07/03/2014 07:44 AM, Yao Qi wrote: > On 07/01/2014 03:56 PM, Luis Machado wrote: >> So it looks like we are taking a different route and GDB ends up >> catching an error before displaying the optimized out information, thus >> not matching what the testcase expects. >> >> I could add a different pattern to the testcase and that would solve the >> couple failures i see, but i wonder if we should tweak the testcase to >> dodge optimizations? > > Hi Luis, > Andrew Burgess had a patch changing " been optimized out>" to "" in this thread, > > PATCH: error reading variable: value has been optimized out > https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2012-08/msg00715.html > > so I think "" is the right direction to go. We should > fix gdb rather than update test case to match the current output, IMO. > Excellent! Thanks for pointing that out. Seeing the date of the patch, i suppose it has not gone in. Regards, Luis