From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2003 invoked by alias); 25 Mar 2003 17:24:44 -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 1996 invoked from network); 25 Mar 2003 17:24:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO duracef.shout.net) (204.253.184.12) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 25 Mar 2003 17:24:42 -0000 Received: (from mec@localhost) by duracef.shout.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2PHOW630148; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 11:24:32 -0600 Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 17:24:00 -0000 From: Michael Elizabeth Chastain Message-Id: <200303251724.h2PHOW630148@duracef.shout.net> To: drow@mvista.com, Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com Subject: Re: A brief analysis of the arm-elf failures for gdb Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com X-SW-Source: 2003-03/txt/msg00345.txt.bz2 re> FAIL: gdb.base/ptype.exp: ptype t_char_array re> FAIL: gdb.base/ptype.exp: ptype func_type re> re> Neither of the above types are emitted in dwarf2 debug formats by gcc if re> they are not used. We need some data object with that type to make this re> test useful. I saw these as regressions with gcc HEAD. They PASSed with gcc HEAD on 2003-02-27 and FAILed with gcc HEAD on 2003-03-15. The tests PASSed with gcc 2.95.3, gcc 3.2.2, gcc gcc-3_2-branch, and gcc gcc-3_3-branch. drow> Definitely a test bug. That's good news. So it looks like gcc HEAD has gotten sharper about generating type definitions, exposing a latent problem in the test. Michael C