From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12523 invoked by alias); 25 Mar 2003 16:55:03 -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 12509 invoked from network); 25 Mar 2003 16:55:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 25 Mar 2003 16:55:03 -0000 Received: from int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (nat-pool-rdu-dmz.redhat.com [172.16.52.200] (may be forged)) by mx1.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2PGt2Q22194 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 11:55:02 -0500 Received: from potter.sfbay.redhat.com (potter.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.27.15]) by int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2PGt2Q26104 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 11:55:02 -0500 Received: from cygbert.vinschen.de (vpn50-10.rdu.redhat.com [172.16.50.10]) by potter.sfbay.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2PGt0505749 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 08:55:00 -0800 Received: (from corinna@localhost) by cygbert.vinschen.de (8.11.6/8.9.3/Linux sendmail 8.9.3) id h2PGswE25853 for gdb@sources.redhat.com; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 17:54:58 +0100 Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 16:55:00 -0000 From: Corinna Vinschen To: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: A brief analysis of the arm-elf failures for gdb Message-ID: <20030325165458.GK23762@cygbert.vinschen.de> Reply-To: gdb@sources.redhat.com Mail-Followup-To: gdb@sources.redhat.com References: <200303251647.h2PGlxx13963@pc960.cambridge.arm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200303251647.h2PGlxx13963@pc960.cambridge.arm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-SW-Source: 2003-03/txt/msg00342.txt.bz2 On Tue, Mar 25, 2003 at 04:47:58PM +0000, Richard Earnshaw wrote: > FAIL: gdb.base/store.exp: next field 1 > FAIL: gdb.base/store.exp: next field 2 > FAIL: gdb.base/store.exp: next field 3 > FAIL: gdb.base/store.exp: next field 4 > > The debugger is stopping on the line after the return statement (the > closing brace for the function). If this is a bug at all, then it is most > likely in gcc. AFAIK there's already a gcc patch in the loop for that. Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Cygwin Developer Red Hat, Inc. mailto:vinschen@redhat.com