From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31762 invoked by alias); 28 Mar 2009 18:11:55 -0000 Received: (qmail 31752 invoked by uid 22791); 28 Mar 2009 18:11:54 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx2.redhat.com (HELO mx2.redhat.com) (66.187.237.31) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sat, 28 Mar 2009 18:11:45 +0000 Received: from int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (int-mx2.corp.redhat.com [172.16.27.26]) by mx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n2SI9g8Q018812; Sat, 28 Mar 2009 14:09:42 -0400 Received: from ns3.rdu.redhat.com (ns3.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.255.199]) by int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id n2SI9gXA006005; Sat, 28 Mar 2009 14:09:42 -0400 Received: from opsy.redhat.com (vpn-12-89.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.12.89]) by ns3.rdu.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n2SI9fp3002451; Sat, 28 Mar 2009 14:09:42 -0400 Received: by opsy.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 500) id EC5305082E8; Sat, 28 Mar 2009 12:09:39 -0600 (MDT) To: Keith Seitz Cc: Pedro Alves , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFC] Special casing dtors? References: <49CAB139.8010100@redhat.com> <200903271734.56216.pedro@codesourcery.com> <49CD200D.6050206@redhat.com> <200903271905.40463.pedro@codesourcery.com> <49CD2F0F.8040203@redhat.com> From: Tom Tromey Reply-To: tromey@redhat.com Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2009 21:19:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <49CD2F0F.8040203@redhat.com> (Keith Seitz's message of "Fri\, 27 Mar 2009 12\:54\:55 -0700") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii 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: 2009-03/txt/msg00649.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Keith" == Keith Seitz writes: Pedro> With stabs? FSF GDB? I *do* see that with dwarf. I'll see if I Pedro> can try this on x86-cygwin, which is currently still using Pedro> gcc-3.4/stabs by default. Keith> BTW, I ran the testsuite on x86 and x86_64 w/stabs (again, using the Keith> F10 compiler), and the summaries are absolutely identical (timestamp Keith> excepted): the patch has no effect. I tried this on x86 F9 using -gstabs+ and those tests pass for me as well. I used the system gcc (4.3 based). At this point I would assume the discrepancy is due to compiler differences. Tom