From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3721 invoked by alias); 22 Jan 2004 22:00:10 -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 3708 invoked from network); 22 Jan 2004 22:00:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hawaii.kealia.com) (209.3.10.89) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 22 Jan 2004 22:00:09 -0000 Received: by hawaii.kealia.com (Postfix, from userid 2049) id 971BAC6CD; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 14:00:08 -0800 (PST) To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [rfa] lookup_transparent_type hack References: <20040119042535.GA10479@nevyn.them.org> From: David Carlton Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 22:00:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20040119042535.GA10479@nevyn.them.org> (Daniel Jacobowitz's message of "Sun, 18 Jan 2004 23:25:35 -0500") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.1002 (Gnus v5.10.2) XEmacs/21.4 (Rational FORTRAN, linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2004-01/txt/msg00613.txt.bz2 On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 23:25:35 -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz said: > This is OK. I'd also like to see results with 2.95, though I expect > no difficulties. No problems with 2.95. Unfortunately, there are issues with mainline GCC. (As of last Thursday's GCC, at least.) The new test in rtti.exp (print *obj) fails there, and in fact the earlier test in rtti.exp (print *e2), which I would expect to pass, is KFAILing. These failures aren't caused by my patch to GDB - they happen with or without the patch - but I want to look into the reason for the behavior first before committing the patch. There are also some (non-regression) FAILs in namespace.exp that are probably related to this. (I have a patch waiting for approval that takes care of most of the FAILs in namespace.exp, but not all of them.) Am I correct in remembering that GCC has recently changed its rules for when it emits debug info for classes? Something about only emitting them in the same place where it emits the vtable (which it does following the CFront rule)? If so, that might be relevant. Or am I thinking of something else? David Carlton carlton@kealia.com