From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27788 invoked by alias); 6 Dec 2002 19:58:12 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 27779 invoked from network); 6 Dec 2002 19:58:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO jackfruit.Stanford.EDU) (171.64.38.136) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 6 Dec 2002 19:58:11 -0000 Received: (from carlton@localhost) by jackfruit.Stanford.EDU (8.11.6/8.11.6) id gB6Jw4b06644; Fri, 6 Dec 2002 11:58:04 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: jackfruit.Stanford.EDU: carlton set sender to carlton@math.stanford.edu using -f To: Andrew Cagney Cc: Fernando Nasser , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, Daniel Jacobowitz Subject: Re: [rfa] store.exp failures References: <3DEFEC76.6040109@redhat.com> <3DF0FC7C.6050209@redhat.com> From: David Carlton Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2002 12:15:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <3DF0FC7C.6050209@redhat.com> Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.4 (Common Lisp) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2002-12/txt/msg00236.txt.bz2 On Fri, 06 Dec 2002 14:37:32 -0500, Andrew Cagney said: > Thanks. In case you're wondering, yes it does pass but with older > compilers. Do you see the two failures with GCC 2.95.3 that I see, by the way? They're FAIL: gdb.base/store.exp: new up struct 1 FAIL: gdb.base/store.exp: new up struct 2 I don't know if they're our fault or GCC's fault. (Or even nobody's fault: the test seems a bit delicate.) > I'm also wondering of GCC eliminating functions when -O0 is a bug. Yeah, I wondered about that, too: it's not going to make our lives any easier if GCC continues doing this... David Carlton carlton@math.stanford.edu