From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32310 invoked by alias); 14 Sep 2012 19:02:36 -0000 Received: (qmail 32169 invoked by uid 22791); 14 Sep 2012 19:02:33 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_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; Fri, 14 Sep 2012 19:02:21 +0000 Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q8EJ2KNp021329 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 14 Sep 2012 15:02:20 -0400 Received: from barimba (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q8EJ2JHn014319 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 14 Sep 2012 15:02:19 -0400 From: Tom Tromey To: "Andrew Burgess" Cc: "gdb-patches\@sourceware.org" , "Jan Kratochvil" Subject: Re: PATCH: error reading variable: value has been optimized out References: <50376F3B.1080407@broadcom.com> <20120826171840.GA21205@host2.jankratochvil.net> <504092C0.2000602@broadcom.com> <87wqzz5eug.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <5051D2A7.2000009@broadcom.com> Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2012 19:02:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <5051D2A7.2000009@broadcom.com> (Andrew Burgess's message of "Thu, 13 Sep 2012 13:33:43 +0100") Message-ID: <87r4q4zav8.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain 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: 2012-09/txt/msg00292.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Andrew" == Andrew Burgess writes: Tom> If it is just a theoretical problem I think we can just declare it Tom> unsupported; and, if we do see it, try reporting it as a compiler bug Tom> first. After all, the compiler could just emit an empty piece instead. Andrew> I'm happy to mark these tests as unsupported. As the tests (#2 Andrew> -> #4) are pretty much zero cost given that I'm adding test #1 Andrew> anyway I'd like to leave them in. I've created a new patch, the Andrew> only change is that test #3 and #4 now report unsupported (with Andrew> comment), and test #2 reports pass, with a comment to explain Andrew> the reasoning. Andrew> + # If we ever fix gdb so this passes we should delete the Andrew> + # unsupported case below. Andrew> + xpass $test Andrew> + unsupported $test I think these tests should 'pass' if they generate the correct output, and 'kfail' otherwise. Tom