From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10148 invoked by alias); 17 Feb 2003 16:32:32 -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 10141 invoked from network); 17 Feb 2003 16:32:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO duracef.shout.net) (204.253.184.12) by 172.16.49.205 with SMTP; 17 Feb 2003 16:32:32 -0000 Received: (from mec@localhost) by duracef.shout.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h1HGWUj12060; Mon, 17 Feb 2003 10:32:30 -0600 Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 16:32:00 -0000 From: Michael Elizabeth Chastain Message-Id: <200302171632.h1HGWUj12060@duracef.shout.net> To: drow@mvista.com, gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: gdb 5.3 versus gdb HEAD%200302015 X-SW-Source: 2003-02/txt/msg00260.txt.bz2 drow> Ooh ooh. I got this one. The test is new in HEAD (wasn't in 5.3); drow> it's a GCC bug; it will be fixed in 3.3, 3.4, and 3.2.3 if any. I drow> checked the patch in the day after 3.2.2. Beautiful, I'll just slip a URL to this message into my tracking document. That takes care of the 5.4/6.0 angle. My results are: PASS for all stabs+ PASS for dwarf-2, gcc gcc-3_3-branch and gcc HEAD FAIL for dwarf-2, gcc 2.95.3 and gcc 3.2-7-rh and gcc 3.2.2 Which matches your report. I dropped coverage of gcc gcc-3_2-branch, but I might bring it back, because I see that people are still checking into that branch. The real question: is there a gcc PR for this. If there is a gcc PR, then I can add an XFAIL arm to the test with the gcc PR number. Michael C