From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25555 invoked by alias); 12 Apr 2011 01:16:15 -0000 Received: (qmail 25545 invoked by uid 22791); 12 Apr 2011 01:16:14 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from e24smtp01.br.ibm.com (HELO e24smtp01.br.ibm.com) (32.104.18.85) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 12 Apr 2011 01:16:10 +0000 Received: from /spool/local by e24smtp01.br.ibm.com with XMail ESMTP for from ; Mon, 11 Apr 2011 22:16:07 -0300 Received: from mailhub3.br.ibm.com ([9.18.232.110]) by e24smtp01.br.ibm.com ([10.172.0.143]) with XMail ESMTP; Mon, 11 Apr 2011 22:16:05 -0300 Received: from d24av01.br.ibm.com (d24av01.br.ibm.com [9.8.31.91]) by mailhub3.br.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id p3C1GswF3428468 for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2011 22:16:54 -0300 Received: from d24av01.br.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d24av01.br.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id p3BNG3KH025527 for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2011 20:16:03 -0300 Received: from [9.12.224.102] ([9.12.224.102]) by d24av01.br.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVin) with ESMTP id p3BNG1Qk025516 for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2011 20:16:02 -0300 Message-ID: <4DA3A7D0.2000701@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2011 01:16:00 -0000 From: Edjunior Barbosa Machado User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.1.16) Gecko/20110303 Lightning/1.0b1 Icedove/3.0.11 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "gdb@sourceware.org" Subject: "optimized out" on gdb.base/gdb1090.exp Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit x-cbid: 11041201-6842-0000-0000-000001724437 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: 2011-04/txt/msg00033.txt.bz2 Hi, running the testcase gdb.base/gdb1090.exp on ppc64 using gcc 4.3.4, noticed an unexpected error in the second test: #1 0x00000000100005dc in foo () at ../../../gdb.git/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/gdb1090.c:39^M 39 marker (s24);^M (gdb) PASS: gdb.base/gdb1090.exp: up from marker print s24^M $1 = ^M (gdb) FAIL: gdb.base/gdb1090.exp: print s24 According to readelf output, s24 uses r9, which is a volatile register. However, the content is properly printed when using gcc 4.4.5 (var s24 goes to r30, which is not volatile on power) Just wondering, can we consider this last test as untested (or even pass) when print returns "optimized out", since it does not print garbage (which was the original issue from gdb/1090)? Thanks, -- Edjunior