Re: A testsuite update, for the curious

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com>]

On Tue, Jan 14, 2003 at 01:50:48AM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 14, 2003 at 12:05:19AM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > One FAIL from gdb.gdb/complaints.exp.  This has been around for a little
> > while; I haven't looked at it yet.  Oh, it's a bug I see very frequently. 
> > Given:
> > 93      static int
> > 94      captured_command_loop (void *data)
> > 95      {
> > 96        if (command_loop_hook == NULL)
> > 97          command_loop ();
> > and GCC 2.95.3 + optimization, we place the breakpoint after the conditional
> > branch, and lose.  I'm not entirely sure why this happens but it seems that
> > it may be a bad interaction with my previous workaround for bad stabs from
> > this compiler (but it's not that simple, since I first remember seeing it
> > two years or so before I implemented the workaround).  I'll dig through my

Heh.  For the curious, this was:

Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 00:42:19 -0500
From: Daniel Jacobowitz <dan@debian.org>
To: 54734@bugs.debian.org
Cc: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, gdb@sourceware.cygnus.com
Subject: problems with line numbering

And at the time I came to the same conclusion; that we could not trust
the debug information regarding the end of the prologue, and we were
already getting the right answer in <arch>_skip_prologue, and then
discarding it.  If the prologue skipper says that it hit the end of the
prologue, I still don't see the point of using debug info to skip
forward farther.  I'm sure there's a case where this is appropriate but
I can't construct one.

Don't think that message got any answers.  It's in the dozen or so
oldest open bug reports for Debian's GDB package (a lot of the older
ones are either fixed, or ObjC related).

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer