From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9252 invoked by alias); 16 Jan 2009 15:04:40 -0000 Received: (qmail 9243 invoked by uid 22791); 16 Jan 2009 15:04:40 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from NaN.false.org (HELO nan.false.org) (208.75.86.248) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 16 Jan 2009 15:03:59 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCEB010630; Fri, 16 Jan 2009 15:03:57 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (209.195.188.212.nauticom.net [209.195.188.212]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB819105BD; Fri, 16 Jan 2009 15:03:57 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1LNqEn-0003sE-94; Fri, 16 Jan 2009 10:03:57 -0500 Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2009 15:04:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Christophe LYON Cc: gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: gdb.cp/templates.exp, ctor/dtor breakpoints, etc.... Message-ID: <20090116150357.GA14717@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Christophe LYON , gdb@sourceware.org References: <49705F42.5080609@st.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <49705F42.5080609@st.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2008-05-11) 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: 2009-01/txt/msg00095.txt.bz2 On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 11:19:46AM +0100, Christophe LYON wrote: > Hello, > > While trying to improve my Open64/Gcc-3-3-3 based compiler results on the > gdb-6.8 testsuite, I noticed on gdb.cp/templates.exp that even on > x86/GCC-4.1.x there are still several KFAIL tests dating back to 2003. > > In particular, there are issues when setting breakpoints on ctor/dtor. > > I thought that the recent support for multiple breakpoints would fix > this, so I am a bit surprised. They've all got PRs associated with them that explain the problems. Most of them seem to deal with menus or with the names of the constructors/destructors; we've mostly fixed breakpoints by line number. > Could someone give me some updated status in this area: should the tests > be revisited, or is it GDB itself that should be fixed, or GCC? In general we use kfail only for GDB bugs, not GCC bugs. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery