From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26545 invoked by alias); 5 Sep 2008 05:16:16 -0000 Received: (qmail 26367 invoked by uid 22791); 5 Sep 2008 05:16:15 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from smtp-out.google.com (HELO smtp-out.google.com) (216.239.33.17) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 05 Sep 2008 05:15:40 +0000 Received: from spaceape23.eur.corp.google.com (spaceape23.eur.corp.google.com [172.28.16.75]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id m855FZNq012058 for ; Fri, 5 Sep 2008 06:15:35 +0100 Received: from rv-out-0708.google.com (rvfb17.prod.google.com [10.140.179.17]) by spaceape23.eur.corp.google.com with ESMTP id m855FXwc008580 for ; Thu, 4 Sep 2008 22:15:34 -0700 Received: by rv-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id b17so303838rvf.44 for ; Thu, 04 Sep 2008 22:15:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.114.137.2 with SMTP id k2mr9699226wad.95.1220591733437; Thu, 04 Sep 2008 22:15:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.114.78.12 with HTTP; Thu, 4 Sep 2008 22:15:33 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <8ac60eac0809042215j4c2c306dva025addd7bc418d6@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2008 05:16:00 -0000 From: "Paul Pluzhnikov" To: "Joel Brobecker" Subject: Re: [patch] Fix for failing gdb.base/mips_pro.exp under gcc-4.3.1 Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-Reply-To: <20080904235828.GA29631@adacore.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <20080822002653.A73DF3A67DF@localhost> <20080904235828.GA29631@adacore.com> 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: 2008-09/txt/msg00088.txt.bz2 On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 4:58 PM, Joel Brobecker wrote: > (sorry about the delay - it looks like everyone was very very busy > this summer) > >> I could not find *why* optimization is necessary for that test case, >> so don't know if disabling inlining is the correct fix :( > > Like Michael said, we have to assume the obvious, which is that they > wanted to test unwinding of optimized code. > >> 2008-02-12 Paul Pluzhnikov Hmm, that should have been 2008-08-22 ... >> >> *gdb.base/mips_pro.exp: compile with gcc -fno-inline, >> lest gcc-4.3.1 optimizes the whole thing away. > > With that in mind, your patch makes sense. We want optimized code, but > not that much optimization :). So ok to commit? Thanks, -- Paul Pluzhnikov