From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28066 invoked by alias); 30 Jan 2004 05:52:01 -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 28034 invoked from network); 30 Jan 2004 05:52:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 30 Jan 2004 05:52:00 -0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i0U5pxb14584 for ; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 00:51:59 -0500 Received: from pobox.corp.redhat.com (pobox.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.156]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i0U5pxa31715 for ; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 00:51:59 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain (vpn50-22.rdu.redhat.com [172.16.50.22]) by pobox.corp.redhat.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i0U5pxcU022256 for ; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 00:51:59 -0500 Received: from saguaro (saguaro.lan [192.168.64.2]) by localhost.localdomain (8.12.10/8.12.10) with SMTP id i0U5prcG030816 for ; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 22:51:53 -0700 Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 05:52:00 -0000 From: Kevin Buettner To: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: DW_OP_piece coming in gcc 3.4 Message-Id: <20040129225153.19a9fce5@saguaro> In-Reply-To: <20040130052757.301704B104@berman.michael-chastain.com> References: <20040130052757.301704B104@berman.michael-chastain.com> Organization: Red Hat Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2004-01/txt/msg00340.txt.bz2 On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 00:27:57 -0500 (EST) mec.gnu@mindspring.com (Michael Elizabeth Chastain) wrote: > I'm getting this with gcc-3_4-branch -gdwarf-2: > > (gdb) PASS: gdb.base/store.exp: up print old l - longest > print r^M > Unhandled dwarf expression opcode 0x93^M > (gdb) FAIL: gdb.base/store.exp: up print old r - longest > > We need a strategic decision: > > (1) Implement DW_OP_piece in time for gdb 6.1. > (2) Ask gcc to not emit DW_OP_piece in gcc 3.4. > (3) File a PR (or tag onto PR gdb/1312 but that's not really right), > KFAIL the tests, add a note to PROBLEMS. > > I don't know which strategy is good for gdb. > > What will it be? The "right" thing is to get DW_OP_piece support into gdb (#1). I'm firmly against #2. #3 may be an acceptable as a short term solution, but I'm none too fond of it either. So, I vote for #1. Kevin