From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-return-11395-listarch-gdb=sources.redhat.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 1389 invoked by alias); 3 Dec 2002 16:41:42 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-subscribe@sources.redhat.com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb@sources.redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-help@sources.redhat.com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com
Received: (qmail 1376 invoked from network); 3 Dec 2002 16:41:38 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO duracef.shout.net) (204.253.184.12)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 3 Dec 2002 16:41:38 -0000
Received: (from mec@localhost)
	by duracef.shout.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) id gB3Gfax31066;
	Tue, 3 Dec 2002 10:41:36 -0600
Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 08:41:00 -0000
From: Michael Elizabeth Chastain <mec@shout.net>
Message-Id: <200212031641.gB3Gfax31066@duracef.shout.net>
To: drow@mvista.com
Subject: Re: Another "ptype B" validity question
Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com
X-SW-Source: 2002-12/txt/msg00054.txt.bz2

Daniel J writes:
> It is _not_ acceptable.  I thought I'd gotten most of these but
> obviously I've missed some.  Please do file a bug.

Okay, I will do that.

With gdb HEAD and binutils 2.13.1 and stabs+:

  gcc 3.2.1   48 FAIL, 81 XFAIL
  gcc HEAD   114 FAIL, 80 XFAIL

It's going to be a couple of bug reports.  :(

gcc HEAD with dwarf-2 is fine compared to gcc 3.2.1 with dwarf-2.

Here is a good table for you:

  http://www.shout.net/~mec/sunday/2002-11-25/difference/compare-by-gcc-17.html

Michael C