From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21554 invoked by alias); 4 Dec 2001 14:23:25 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 21467 invoked from network); 4 Dec 2001 14:23:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (128.2.145.6) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 4 Dec 2001 14:23:19 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian)) id 16BGUD-0000vZ-00; Tue, 04 Dec 2001 09:23:53 -0500 Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2001 06:23:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Michael Elizabeth Chastain Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [testsuite/c++] Why is there one fail in demangle.exp? Message-ID: <20011204092353.A3529@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Michael Elizabeth Chastain , gdb@sources.redhat.com References: <200112040957.DAA12609@duracef.shout.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200112040957.DAA12609@duracef.shout.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23i X-SW-Source: 2001-12/txt/msg00017.txt.bz2 On Tue, Dec 04, 2001 at 03:57:30AM -0600, Michael Elizabeth Chastain wrote: > The comment above the test is: > > ## 1999-04-19: "Fix from Dale Hawkins". Shouldn't segfault. > > This implies to me that an old version of gdb used to segfault on > that input. > > Note that the release date of gdb-4.18 was 1999-04-09. So I built one: > > mec@duracef:/tmp/mec/build$ gdb/gdb > GNU gdb 4.18 > Copyright 1998 Free Software Foundation, Inc. > GDB is free software, covered by the GNU General Public License, and you are > welcome to change it and/or distribute copies of it under certain conditions. > Type "show copying" to see the conditions. > There is absolutely no warranty for GDB. Type "show warranty" for details. > This GDB was configured as "i686-pc-linux-gnu". > (gdb) maintenance demangle __thunk_64__0RL__list__Q29CosNaming20_proxy_NamingConMtextUlRPt25_CORBA_Unbounded_Sequence1ZQ29CosNaming7BindingRPQ29CosNaming15BindingIterator > Segmentation fault (core dumped) > > > I can see that being wrong (_0RL__list as a function name is a little > > suspicious). But the test expects "Can't demangle". > > I don't know what the right answer is. It looks like the intent of the > test is to check whether the demangler crashes on this input. It's > quite possible that the input is purposely malformed. > > I'm inclined to approve both "Can't demangle" and any reasonable > demangling of the input as PASS, with a comment to the effect that > gdb 4.18 segfaults on this input. Dan Berlin commented in a separate message that the string has an ambiguous meaning in the v2 mangling grammar. I don't believe that the FAIL: serves any purpose, though, so I'd like to make it pass but put a comment to the effect that this isn't 100% accurate. Patch later. -- Daniel Jacobowitz Carnegie Mellon University MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer