From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 80030 invoked by alias); 15 Sep 2016 13:11:06 -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 80005 invoked by uid 89); 15 Sep 2016 13:11:02 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-3.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy= X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Thu, 15 Sep 2016 13:10:52 +0000 Received: from int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.24]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B225EA0BF0 for ; Thu, 15 Sep 2016 13:10:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.11]) by int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id u8FDAo0i013116; Thu, 15 Sep 2016 09:10:51 -0400 Subject: Re: [testsuite patch] Fix C++11 compilation failure for gdb.cp/m-static.exp To: Jan Kratochvil References: <20160911142248.GA12817@host1.jankratochvil.net> <20160915123424.GA8875@host1.jankratochvil.net> Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org From: Pedro Alves Message-ID: Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2016 13:11:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20160915123424.GA8875@host1.jankratochvil.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2016-09/txt/msg00152.txt.bz2 On 09/15/2016 01:34 PM, Jan Kratochvil wrote: > On Thu, 15 Sep 2016 14:22:54 +0200, Pedro Alves wrote: >> Did you try moving the initialization to the .cc file? Like: >> >> const float gnu_obj_4::somewhere = 3.14159; >> >> Did you find a reason to not do that? > > I have found that it may invalidate the testcase some way so I stayed on the > safe side. I have read now briefly the .exp file and it does have some XFAIL > around "extra CU-level DW_TAG_variable as DW_AT_declaration". > > But those compiler bugs should be forgotten now so I am fine even with this > new patch below. > Hmm, OK, now that I read the test, I think you were right in trying to keep it safe, actually. The .exp file has: # static const initialized in the class definition, PR gdb/11702. if { $non_dwarf } { setup_xfail *-*-* } gdb_test "print test4.everywhere" "\\$\[0-9\].* = 317" "static const int initialized in class definition" if { $non_dwarf } { setup_xfail *-*-* } gdb_test "print test4.somewhere" "\\$\[0-9\].* = 3.14\[0-9\]*" "static const float initialized in class definition" ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Added by this: https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11702 https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2010-06/msg00677.html https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2010-06/txt00011.txt So the new patch would make that highlighted tested above not test what its test message says it is testing. So I now think your original patch is better. Please push that one instead. (Even better would be to rewrite the test using the dwarf assembler, but that'd of course be much more work.) Thanks, Pedro Alves