From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26224 invoked by alias); 30 Sep 2010 11:47:06 -0000 Received: (qmail 26214 invoked by uid 22791); 30 Sep 2010 11:47:05 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00,MISSING_MID X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from localhost (HELO gcc.gnu.org) (127.0.0.1) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 30 Sep 2010 11:46:58 +0000 From: "hp at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug libstdc++/45841] [4.6 Regression]: r164529 cris-elf libstdc++ 27_io/basic_filebuf/seekoff/char/2-io.cc X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: libstdc++ X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: hp at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 4.6.0 X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: In-Reply-To: References: X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 14:48:00 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2010-09/txt/msg03251.txt.bz2 Message-ID: <20100930144800.CuUeYuEDTaG3I2M04Wdt3OfrSPKnUHmqnTRzqRAfrdU@z> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45841 --- Comment #8 from Hans-Peter Nilsson 2010-09-30 11:46:47 UTC --- (In reply to comment #4) > Or do you guys happen to have a setup I can ssh into? :v) Nominally, you *could* repeat my findings with a cross-compiler setup as described by but using that to investigate an execution failure might be a bit too challenging for a newcomer. In my autotester using that kind of setup, this failure is a regression. There are certainly other failures (for different reasons; bugs/shortcomings in newlib, bugs in the test-cases etc.), but this one is a *regression*. I guess from the earlier comments, your patch is rather exposing another issue, not the direct cause. The trace I mentioned (I'll try to get to it this week) will show me at least the sequence of basic libc or system operations were used (seek, read, etc.) and I hope then you, by knowing the code around the patch, can help me by telling whether a specific call is sane or bogus, so we can pinpoint the failing code. No, the trace can't be used with gdb, but only because that's a feature that's not yet been implemented. ;-)