From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21230 invoked by alias); 31 Jan 2002 17:59:46 -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 21146 invoked from network); 31 Jan 2002 17:59:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (128.2.145.6) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 31 Jan 2002 17:59:42 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 16WLUy-0003DP-00; Thu, 31 Jan 2002 12:59:48 -0500 Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 09:59:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Andrew Cagney Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com, gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: More libiberty/demangler fallout - gdb (was: Re: Er, ...) Message-ID: <20020131125948.A12285@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Andrew Cagney , gdb@sources.redhat.com, gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org References: <3C59819D.9020500@cygnus.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3C59819D.9020500@cygnus.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23i X-SW-Source: 2002-01/txt/msg00362.txt.bz2 On Thu, Jan 31, 2002 at 12:40:45PM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote: > Er, the number of failures on NetBSD/PPC just jumped from ~147 to ~650. > This segment of bitfields.c illustrates the problem. I don't think it > is my cleanups here :-/ > > ac131313@nettle$ gcc --version > egcs-1.1.2 > > Generates stabs in elf. (You scared me! bitfields.c has nothing to do with the problem :) The problem is: > (gdb) print/x flags > $11 = {uc = 0xff, s1 = 0x0, u1 = 0x1, s2 = 0x0, u2 = 0x3, s3 = 0x0, u3 = > 0x7, s9 = 0x0, u > 9 = 0x1ff, sc = 0x0} > (gdb) PASS: gdb.base/bitfields.exp: bitfield containment #1 > > > (gdb) print/x flags > $11 = {uc = 0xff, short = 0x0, u1 = 0x1, short = 0x0, u2 = 0x3, short = > 0x0, u3 > = 0x7, short = 0x0, u9 = 0x1ff, short = 0x0} > (gdb) FAIL: gdb.base/bitfields.exp: bitfield containment #1 All the 's1's have been replaced by 'short'. This is because of the current argument on one of the gcc lists about how the demangler should treat symbols that may be mangled but without the leading mangling prefix for v3 mangling. GCC folks, can we please get this fixed? -- Daniel Jacobowitz Carnegie Mellon University MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer