From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8379 invoked by alias); 23 Apr 2003 03:07:47 -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 8366 invoked from network); 23 Apr 2003 03:07:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO crack.them.org) (65.125.64.184) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 23 Apr 2003 03:07:47 -0000 Received: from nevyn.them.org ([66.93.61.169] ident=mail) by crack.them.org with asmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 1989yS-0005cs-00; Tue, 22 Apr 2003 21:27:05 -0500 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 1989yC-0004n3-00; Tue, 22 Apr 2003 22:26:48 -0400 Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 03:07:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Elena Zannoni Cc: Michael Elizabeth Chastain , gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: gdb/1180: gcc bug or gdb bug? Message-ID: <20030423022648.GA17880@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Elena Zannoni , Michael Elizabeth Chastain , gdb@sources.redhat.com References: <200304191548.h3JFmmJG017080@duracef.shout.net> <16037.63660.347124.981160@localhost.redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <16037.63660.347124.981160@localhost.redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2003-04/txt/msg00263.txt.bz2 On Tue, Apr 22, 2003 at 10:21:32PM -0400, Elena Zannoni wrote: > Michael Elizabeth Chastain writes: > > Hi guys, > > > > Can I get someone to look at gdb/1180 and say whether it's a > > gcc bug or a gdb bug? > > > > gcc changed its debugging output and gdb doesn't like the new output. > > I need to decide whether to file a PR against gcc about it. > > > > Michael C > > Whiney QA guy > > > This seems like a gcc debuginfo problem to me. There is a lexical > block for the innermost block but not for the middle one. Looks like that to me too. Michael, I believe this was caused by one of Zack's patches; I told him about it last week and he hasn't had time to look at it. I recommend filing a GCC PR, and including the changelog entry for the responsible patch - since you've already got it narrowed down quite precisely! -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer