From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4155 invoked by alias); 17 Feb 2003 17:08:37 -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 4146 invoked from network); 17 Feb 2003 17:08:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO duracef.shout.net) (204.253.184.12) by 172.16.49.205 with SMTP; 17 Feb 2003 17:08:36 -0000 Received: (from mec@localhost) by duracef.shout.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h1HH8YI12787; Mon, 17 Feb 2003 11:08:34 -0600 Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 17:08:00 -0000 From: Michael Elizabeth Chastain Message-Id: <200302171708.h1HH8YI12787@duracef.shout.net> To: carlton@math.stanford.edu Subject: Re: gdb 5.3 versus gdb HEAD%200302015 Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com X-SW-Source: 2003-02/txt/msg00271.txt.bz2 > I'm curious: what shows up in gdb.log when you get FAIL here? print pEe->D::vg()^M $12 = 202^M (gdb) FAIL: gdb.c++/virtfunc.exp: print pEe->D::vg() This happens with gcc 2.95.3, both dwarf-2 and stabs+. It's a different bug than the bug you PR'd. With gcc v3, I get "Attempt to take address of value not located in memory." With gcc v2, I get the wrong answer (the right answer is 102). It looks like gdb is ignoring the 'D::' qualifier and calling E::vg instead of D::vg. > Certainly you should feel free to add more KFAIL branches to that test > if you wish; just send them all to the same PR. In this case I think it should be a different KFAIL arm pointing to a different PR. I will do this tonight unless you beat me to it. Michael C