From: David Carlton <carlton@math.stanford.edu>
To: gdb <gdb@sources.redhat.com>
Cc: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@redhat.com>
Subject: store.exp failures
Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2002 13:30:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ro1wumo2lwx.fsf@jackfruit.Stanford.EDU> (raw)
When I run gdb.base/store.exp, (GCC 3.1, i686 Linux) I get tons and
tons of failures. Looking into the log file, I see the following:
(gdb) break main
Breakpoint 1 at 0x80488f0: file gdb.base/store.c, line 233.
(gdb) run
Starting program: /extra/gdb/mirror/src/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/store
Breakpoint 1, main () at gdb.base/store.c:233
233 wack_struct_1 ();
(gdb) tbreak wack_char
Breakpoint 2 at 0x804849e: file gdb.base/store.c, line 46.
(gdb) PASS: gdb.base/store.exp: tbreak wack_char
continue
Continuing.
Program exited normally.
So, basically, it looks like some of the calls to the wack_XXX
functions are getting optimized out by the compiler, even though no
optimization flags are being passed. Digging into the assembly
confirms this; the code for main starts off as follows:
main:
.LFB25:
# store.c:215
.loc 1 215 0
# basic block 0
pushl %ebp
.LCFI67:
movl %esp, %ebp
.LCFI68:
subl $120, %esp
.LCFI69:
andl $-16, %esp
movl $0, %eax
subl %eax, %esp
# store.c:233
.loc 1 233 0
leal -10(%ebp), %eax
movl %eax, (%esp)
call wack_struct_1
I have no idea what to do about this. The same thing happens with GCC
3.2.
For what it's worth, if I run it with GCC 2.95.3, I get FAILs on "new
up struct 1" and "new up struct 2", but everything else works.
(Incidentally, is 'wack' a typo for 'whack', or something else?)
David Carlton
carlton@math.stanford.edu
next reply other threads:[~2002-12-05 21:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-12-05 13:30 David Carlton [this message]
2002-12-05 13:42 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2002-12-05 13:51 ` David Carlton
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=ro1wumo2lwx.fsf@jackfruit.Stanford.EDU \
--to=carlton@math.stanford.edu \
--cc=ac131313@redhat.com \
--cc=gdb@sources.redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox