From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11918 invoked by alias); 17 Feb 2003 16:35:03 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 11910 invoked from network); 17 Feb 2003 16:35:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO crack.them.org) (65.125.64.184) by 172.16.49.205 with SMTP; 17 Feb 2003 16:35:03 -0000 Received: from nevyn.them.org ([66.93.61.169] ident=mail) by crack.them.org with asmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 18kq7a-0001nP-00 for ; Mon, 17 Feb 2003 12:36:06 -0600 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 18koEP-0004ft-00 for ; Mon, 17 Feb 2003 11:35:01 -0500 Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 16:35:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: gdb 5.3 versus gdb HEAD%200302015 Message-ID: <20030217163501.GA17952@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: gdb@sources.redhat.com References: <200302171632.h1HGWUj12060@duracef.shout.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200302171632.h1HGWUj12060@duracef.shout.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2003-02/txt/msg00261.txt.bz2 On Mon, Feb 17, 2003 at 10:32:30AM -0600, Michael Elizabeth Chastain wrote: > drow> Ooh ooh. I got this one. The test is new in HEAD (wasn't in 5.3); > drow> it's a GCC bug; it will be fixed in 3.3, 3.4, and 3.2.3 if any. I > drow> checked the patch in the day after 3.2.2. > > Beautiful, I'll just slip a URL to this message into my tracking > document. That takes care of the 5.4/6.0 angle. > > My results are: > > PASS for all stabs+ > PASS for dwarf-2, gcc gcc-3_3-branch and gcc HEAD > FAIL for dwarf-2, gcc 2.95.3 and gcc 3.2-7-rh and gcc 3.2.2 > > Which matches your report. > > I dropped coverage of gcc gcc-3_2-branch, but I might bring it back, > because I see that people are still checking into that branch. > > The real question: is there a gcc PR for this. If there is a gcc PR, > then I can add an XFAIL arm to the test with the gcc PR number. Nope, there was no PR, just a patch when I noticed it. Besides, didn't we want to only use PRs in the GDB database? This would be an external/closed. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer