From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28578 invoked by alias); 2 Jan 2007 14:42:15 -0000 Received: (qmail 28568 invoked by uid 22791); 2 Jan 2007 14:42:14 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from nevyn.them.org (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31.1) with ESMTP; Tue, 02 Jan 2007 14:42:07 +0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1H1kq5-0002t6-5L for gdb@sourceware.org; Tue, 02 Jan 2007 09:42:05 -0500 Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2007 14:42:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Ada testsuite failures Message-ID: <20070102144205.GB10771@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: gdb@sourceware.org References: <20061231194604.GA23919@nevyn.them.org> <20070102073827.GB3434@adacore.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070102073827.GB3434@adacore.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2007-01/txt/msg00011.txt.bz2 On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 11:38:27AM +0400, Joel Brobecker wrote: > I wouldn't be surprised. Recents versions of GCC are much better at > not emitting debugging info for unused entity. This has caused us a lot > of trouble when moving to GCC 4.1 for instance, because GNAT generates > of lot of entities that appear unused from the compiler point of view, > but are necessary for the debugger to work properly. We're getting back > to the same project of getting rid of all these encoding in favor of > standard DWARF. This is actually a very active project that we're > working on right now, so hopefully the situation won't be as bad soon. The unused type purging does sound like a likely culprit for these, yeah. Just adding -fno-eliminate-unused-debug-types doesn't fix it, but it's probably related. > I can ask that the local patches we maintain in our tree be submitted > for inclusion if you think they'd be accepted. Our opinion was that they > would probably be rejected as a step backward. Well, I'd like to see them, anyway. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery