From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2963 invoked by alias); 11 Dec 2002 22:27:28 -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 2955 invoked from network); 11 Dec 2002 22:27:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO jackfruit.Stanford.EDU) (171.64.38.136) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 11 Dec 2002 22:27:27 -0000 Received: (from carlton@localhost) by jackfruit.Stanford.EDU (8.11.6/8.11.6) id gBBMRJk24118; Wed, 11 Dec 2002 14:27:19 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: jackfruit.Stanford.EDU: carlton set sender to carlton@math.stanford.edu using -f To: Michael Elizabeth Chastain Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, fnasser@redhat.com Subject: Re: [rfa/testsuite] gdb.base/selftest.exp: work with optimization References: <200212112215.gBBMFqh08988@duracef.shout.net> From: David Carlton Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 14:31:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <200212112215.gBBMFqh08988@duracef.shout.net> 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/msg00378.txt.bz2 On Wed, 11 Dec 2002 16:15:52 -0600, Michael Elizabeth Chastain said: > David Carlton writes: > + # "current_directory initialization" possibilities happen to > + # me with GCC 3.1 on i686-pc-linux-gnu when I compile with > + # optimization. > That is twice today you said "gcc 3.1" -- is that a think for gcc 3.2.1, > or are you really testing with gcc 3.1? I really am testing with GCC 3.1 most of the time: on my work machine, that's what's installed in /usr/local/bin (though other GCC's are installed elsewhere, and they sometimes get used). Obviously it's not the most important version of GCC to test with, but I haven't yet run into a compelling reason to upgrade to a more recent version; and it probably doesn't hurt to have somebody testing GDB with compilers other than 2.95-variants and 3.2.1. (Though your test matrix now handles that issue quite nicely.) In the comment quoted above, I have no reason to believe that the problem is specific to 3.1, but it seemed like a situation where it was worthwhile mentioning the compiler that I happened to be using. David Carlton carlton@math.stanford.edu