* Er, ...
@ 2002-01-31 9:40 Andrew Cagney
2002-01-31 9:59 ` More libiberty/demangler fallout - gdb (was: Re: Er, ...) Daniel Jacobowitz
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Andrew Cagney @ 2002-01-31 9:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gdb
Er, the number of failures on NetBSD/PPC just jumped from ~147 to ~650.
This segment of bitfields.c illustrates the problem. I don't think it
is my cleanups here :-/
ac131313@nettle$ gcc --version
egcs-1.1.2
Generates stabs in elf.
Andrew
(gdb) print/x flags
$11 = {uc = 0xff, s1 = 0x0, u1 = 0x1, s2 = 0x0, u2 = 0x3, s3 = 0x0, u3 =
0x7, s9 = 0x0, u
9 = 0x1ff, sc = 0x0}
(gdb) PASS: gdb.base/bitfields.exp: bitfield containment #1
(gdb) print/x flags
$11 = {uc = 0xff, short = 0x0, u1 = 0x1, short = 0x0, u2 = 0x3, short =
0x0, u3
= 0x7, short = 0x0, u9 = 0x1ff, short = 0x0}
(gdb) FAIL: gdb.base/bitfields.exp: bitfield containment #1
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread* More libiberty/demangler fallout - gdb (was: Re: Er, ...)
2002-01-31 9:40 Er, Andrew Cagney
@ 2002-01-31 9:59 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2002-01-31 10:10 ` Andrew Cagney
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Daniel Jacobowitz @ 2002-01-31 9:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andrew Cagney; +Cc: gdb, gcc-bugs
On Thu, Jan 31, 2002 at 12:40:45PM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> Er, the number of failures on NetBSD/PPC just jumped from ~147 to ~650.
> This segment of bitfields.c illustrates the problem. I don't think it
> is my cleanups here :-/
>
> ac131313@nettle$ gcc --version
> egcs-1.1.2
>
> Generates stabs in elf.
(You scared me! bitfields.c has nothing to do with the problem :)
The problem is:
> (gdb) print/x flags
> $11 = {uc = 0xff, s1 = 0x0, u1 = 0x1, s2 = 0x0, u2 = 0x3, s3 = 0x0, u3 =
> 0x7, s9 = 0x0, u
> 9 = 0x1ff, sc = 0x0}
> (gdb) PASS: gdb.base/bitfields.exp: bitfield containment #1
>
>
> (gdb) print/x flags
> $11 = {uc = 0xff, short = 0x0, u1 = 0x1, short = 0x0, u2 = 0x3, short =
> 0x0, u3
> = 0x7, short = 0x0, u9 = 0x1ff, short = 0x0}
> (gdb) FAIL: gdb.base/bitfields.exp: bitfield containment #1
All the 's1's have been replaced by 'short'. This is because of the
current argument on one of the gcc lists about how the demangler should
treat symbols that may be mangled but without the leading mangling
prefix for v3 mangling.
GCC folks, can we please get this fixed?
--
Daniel Jacobowitz Carnegie Mellon University
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread* Re: More libiberty/demangler fallout - gdb (was: Re: Er, ...)
2002-01-31 9:59 ` More libiberty/demangler fallout - gdb (was: Re: Er, ...) Daniel Jacobowitz
@ 2002-01-31 10:10 ` Andrew Cagney
2002-01-31 10:46 ` Andrew Cagney
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Andrew Cagney @ 2002-01-31 10:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Daniel Jacobowitz; +Cc: gdb, gcc-bugs
> On Thu, Jan 31, 2002 at 12:40:45PM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote:
>
>> Er, the number of failures on NetBSD/PPC just jumped from ~147 to ~650.
>> This segment of bitfields.c illustrates the problem. I don't think it
>> is my cleanups here :-/
>>
>> ac131313@nettle$ gcc --version
>> egcs-1.1.2
>>
>> Generates stabs in elf.
>
>
> (You scared me! bitfields.c has nothing to do with the problem :)
Sorry. I've been backing out obvious candidates - bitfields.c, symtab.c
(:-) and the problem hasn't gone away.
> The problem is:
>
>
>> (gdb) print/x flags
>> $11 = {uc = 0xff, s1 = 0x0, u1 = 0x1, s2 = 0x0, u2 = 0x3, s3 = 0x0, u3 =
>> 0x7, s9 = 0x0, u
>> 9 = 0x1ff, sc = 0x0}
>> (gdb) PASS: gdb.base/bitfields.exp: bitfield containment #1
>>
>>
>> (gdb) print/x flags
>> $11 = {uc = 0xff, short = 0x0, u1 = 0x1, short = 0x0, u2 = 0x3, short =
>> 0x0, u3
>> = 0x7, short = 0x0, u9 = 0x1ff, short = 0x0}
>> (gdb) FAIL: gdb.base/bitfields.exp: bitfield containment #1
>
>
> All the 's1's have been replaced by 'short'. This is because of the
> current argument on one of the gcc lists about how the demangler should
> treat symbols that may be mangled but without the leading mangling
> prefix for v3 mangling.
>
> GCC folks, can we please get this fixed?
Ah, thanks. I think I'll read up on GCC's revert rules.
Andrew
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread* Re: More libiberty/demangler fallout - gdb (was: Re: Er, ...)
2002-01-31 10:10 ` Andrew Cagney
@ 2002-01-31 10:46 ` Andrew Cagney
0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Andrew Cagney @ 2002-01-31 10:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andrew Cagney, gdb; +Cc: Daniel Jacobowitz, gcc-bugs
> All the 's1's have been replaced by 'short'. This is because of the
> current argument on one of the gcc lists about how the demangler should
> treat symbols that may be mangled but without the leading mangling
> prefix for v3 mangling.
>
> GCC folks, can we please get this fixed?
>
>
> Ah, thanks. I think I'll read up on GCC's revert rules.
http://gcc.gnu.org/develop.html (see Patch Reversion :-)
2002-01-30 Phil Edwards <pme@gcc.gnu.org>
* cp-demangle.c (cp_demangle_type): Do not protect with
IN_LIBGCC2.
(cplus_demangle_v3): Mimic __cxa_demangle and fall back on
cp_demangle_type.
* testsuite/demangle-expected: New gnu-v3 test.
For GDB people you want to drop liberty/cp-demangle.c back to 1.15 until
this clears up.
Andrew
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2002-01-31 18:46 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2002-01-31 9:40 Er, Andrew Cagney
2002-01-31 9:59 ` More libiberty/demangler fallout - gdb (was: Re: Er, ...) Daniel Jacobowitz
2002-01-31 10:10 ` Andrew Cagney
2002-01-31 10:46 ` Andrew Cagney
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox