From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4569 invoked by alias); 5 Jan 2007 16:03:57 -0000 Received: (qmail 4559 invoked by uid 22791); 5 Jan 2007 16:03:56 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from nile.gnat.com (HELO nile.gnat.com) (205.232.38.5) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 05 Jan 2007 16:03:46 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-nile.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8502248CEC0 for ; Fri, 5 Jan 2007 11:03:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from nile.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (nile.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 17292-01-3 for ; Fri, 5 Jan 2007 11:03:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from takamaka.act-europe.fr (AStDenis-105-1-88-117.w80-8.abo.wanadoo.fr [80.8.217.117]) by nile.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3BD948CE55 for ; Fri, 5 Jan 2007 11:03:43 -0500 (EST) Received: by takamaka.act-europe.fr (Postfix, from userid 1000) id D0D2D34C099; Fri, 5 Jan 2007 20:04:31 +0400 (RET) Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2007 16:03:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: New Ada failure Message-ID: <20070105160431.GA14740@adacore.com> References: <20070104202406.GA26522@nevyn.them.org> <20070105035647.GB3434@adacore.com> <20070105035904.GA9926@nevyn.them.org> <20070105145433.GH3434@adacore.com> <20070105154157.GA26403@nevyn.them.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070105154157.GA26403@nevyn.them.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i 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/msg00096.txt.bz2 > > I have now checked in a patch in GCC that explains that the GNAT > > runtime should not be stripped. Would you mind filing a bug with > > the Debian maintainers? I'm not familiar with the procedure. You > > may want to mention to them that they should be able to build the > > runtime without -g. There is a flag for it, probably LIBGNATCFLAGS > > or some such. The makefiles will know to force -g -O1 for the few > > units we need. > > Done, though we may take a different approach. Meanwhile, should > we let the test fail for this case, or mark it UNSUPPORTED? I am of two hearts with this. On the one hand, yes, the test should be unsupported if the GNAT runtime is malformed. However, a bug in our lookup would yield the same type of failure, and thus marking the testcase as unsuported would hide that. I would lean towards making it UNSUPPORTED, since the chances of the lookup failing are fairly remote (or many other testcases will badly fail). If we decide to make it unsupported, would you mind taking care of it? I cannot reproduce your problem, and my attempts at building the FSF compiler from sources have miserably failed... Thank you, -- Joel