From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id AF0CE388F00D; Sun, 8 Aug 2021 08:35:33 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org AF0CE388F00D From: "vries at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gdb-prs@sourceware.org Subject: [Bug ada/28180] FAIL: gdb.ada/interface.exp: print s (timeout) Date: Sun, 08 Aug 2021 08:35:33 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gdb X-Bugzilla-Component: ada X-Bugzilla-Version: HEAD X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: vries at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: tromey at sourceware dot org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-BeenThere: gdb-prs@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb-prs mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 08 Aug 2021 08:35:33 -0000 https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D28180 --- Comment #9 from Tom de Vries --- (In reply to Tom Tromey from comment #8) > (In reply to Tom de Vries from comment #3) >=20 > > Hmm, so ada uses named artifical variables that need to be in the symbol > > table in order to evaluate them, but they should be ignored in terms of= gdb > > commands that investigate source constructs like "p s". That seems to = be > > the root cause. >=20 > Yeah, Ada uses a special setup where some debug info is expressed via > magic symbol names. The Ada compiler is moving away from this -- > gcc recently switched its default to "minimal encodings", but even with > this in place there are still some things that require this treatment. >=20 >=20 > > Any thoughts on the patch ? >=20 > Unless there's some strong need, my inclination would be to not do anythi= ng > special to support older versions of the compiler. We're trying to move > everything to "real DWARF", at least to the extent that this is possible. >=20 > Joel is away right now, but I'll CC him to see what he thinks. FTR, I can live with an xfail. But it's good to note that with the latest = gcc version, the compiler still produces this type of variables (not s.14, but others, f.i. ), and an xfail should explain why s.14 is incorrect compiler output, and correct compiler output. --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.=