From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28049 invoked by alias); 6 Dec 2002 00:16:03 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-prs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-prs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 28027 invoked by uid 71); 6 Dec 2002 00:16:02 -0000 Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2002 16:16:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20021206001602.28026.qmail@sources.redhat.com> To: nobody@gcc.gnu.org Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, From: Wolfgang Bangerth Subject: Re: debug/1621: Debugging with complex numbers Reply-To: Wolfgang Bangerth X-SW-Source: 2002-12/txt/msg00334.txt.bz2 List-Id: The following reply was made to PR debug/1621; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Wolfgang Bangerth To: "Joseph S. Myers" Cc: bangerth@dealii.org, , , Subject: Re: debug/1621: Debugging with complex numbers Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 18:09:46 -0600 (CST) > > Joseph, this report is now almost 2 years old, and versions > > 3.0 and 3.1/2 have happened in between. Unfortunately, there > > are no testcases in the report, so I can't check the claims > > myself, but do you know whether the situation has or has > > not improved in the meantime? > > The testcase is at the URL given in the report > : Oh, sorry, I seem to have overlooked this. > static __complex__ double x = 2.0 + 3.0i; > int main(void) > { > return 0; > } > > (gdb) p x > $1 = Invalid C/C++ type code 20 in symbol table. > (gdb) p x$real > No symbol "x$real" in current context. > (gdb) p x$imag > No symbol "x$imag" in current context. This is also the behavior I get, using 3.3CVS and gdb5.1.1. For some reason, I cannot get gdb CVS compiled, so can't check whether it works now. The gdb error message indicates that gcc is doing something but gdb isn't understanding it. Daniel, I'm CC:ing you since you wrote the latest mail I could find on the gdb mailing lists that is about complex value support http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb/2002-01/msg00359.html In this you state that you had been fixing some problems. Do you know anything about gdb's present support for complex values? > Some of the problem, if still there, may be a GDB problem, some may be a > GCC problem. But as long as the manual is making claims about what GDB > will do in future, the presence of such claims in the manual is a GCC > problem unless there's some reason to suppose them to be accurate. Agreed. Regards Wolfgang ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Wolfgang Bangerth email: bangerth@ticam.utexas.edu www: http://www.ticam.utexas.edu/~bangerth