From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18305 invoked by alias); 2 Jul 2010 21:22:14 -0000 Received: (qmail 18286 invoked by uid 22791); 2 Jul 2010 21:22:13 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD 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, 02 Jul 2010 21:22:09 +0000 Received: from int-mx05.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx05.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.18]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o62LLt34006915 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 2 Jul 2010 17:21:55 -0400 Received: from ns3.rdu.redhat.com (ns3.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.255.199]) by int-mx05.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o62LLtKf027912; Fri, 2 Jul 2010 17:21:55 -0400 Received: from opsy.redhat.com (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by ns3.rdu.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o62LLsnD014961; Fri, 2 Jul 2010 17:21:54 -0400 Received: by opsy.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 500) id B02A8378196; Fri, 2 Jul 2010 15:21:53 -0600 (MDT) From: Tom Tromey To: Jan Kratochvil Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Joel Brobecker Subject: Re: RFC: libunwind-frame.c -vs- optimized-out References: <20100702210728.GA631@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> Date: Fri, 02 Jul 2010 21:22:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20100702210728.GA631@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> (Jan Kratochvil's message of "Fri, 2 Jul 2010 23:07:29 +0200") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1 (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: 2010-07/txt/msg00055.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Jan" == Jan Kratochvil writes: Jan> Yes, it also seems to me so. Your change is an incoremental improvement. Jan> If there are no regressions approving the check-in. I will commit it shortly. I compared this patch against the test results from a revision before the optimized-out changes. I had to do this by hand because in the meantime there were a lot of test suite changes. (And as an aside, our test suite is still very noisy: we have a lot of tests named "set print sevenbit-strings", among other things.) I also compared to HEAD. Here the patch fixes a lot of regressions. According to gcc/contrib/compare_tests it also causes: gdb.mi/mi2-break.exp: list of breakpoints gdb.mi/mi-break.exp: list of breakpoints gdb.mi/mi-nonstop.exp: check varobj, w1, 1 ... but all of these are duplicate test names and I think the script is confused about PASS -vs- XFAIL. (Also the last test there is probably misnamed.) Tom