From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23702 invoked by alias); 25 Nov 2005 09:23:27 -0000 Received: (qmail 23690 invoked by uid 22791); 25 Nov 2005 09:23:26 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from 203.197.88.2.ILL-PUNE.static.vsnl.net.in (HELO marvin.codito.net) (203.197.88.2) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 25 Nov 2005 09:23:24 +0000 Received: from [192.168.100.141] ([220.225.32.98]) (authenticated bits=0) by marvin.codito.net (8.13.5/8.13.5/Debian-3) with ESMTP id jAP9M0FC001373 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 25 Nov 2005 14:52:03 +0530 Message-ID: <4386D76E.4060307@codito.com> Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 15:57:00 -0000 From: Kunal Parmar User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (X11/20051013) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Wu Zhou CC: Daniel Jacobowitz , Mark Kettenis , brobecker@adacore.com, gdb@sources.redhat.com, gdb-testers@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: First release candidate for GDB 6.4 available References: <20051122083855.GH1635@adacore.com> <200511242233.jAOMXQmq024151@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <20051125030852.GC20073@nevyn.them.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Status: Clean X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2005-11/txt/msg00559.txt.bz2 Wu Zhou wrote: >On Thu, 24 Nov 2005, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > > >>On Fri, Nov 25, 2005 at 10:53:50AM +0800, Wu Zhou wrote: >> >> >>>>... >>>> >>>> >>>>>FAIL: gdb.cp/anon-union.exp: print w 1 >>>>>FAIL: gdb.cp/anon-union.exp: print z 1 >>>>>FAIL: gdb.cp/anon-union.exp: print w 2 >>>>>FAIL: gdb.cp/anon-union.exp: print z 2 >>>>>FAIL: gdb.cp/anon-union.exp: print w 3 >>>>>FAIL: gdb.cp/anon-union.exp: print z 3 >>>>> >>>>> >>>I guess that GDB don't know how to handle anonymous union yet. I ever saw >>>these failures in a few platform. And also see them ok on others. The >>>difference I find is that some version of gcc handle the anonymous union >>>members as normal variables, others don't. >>> >>> >>I believe this was a bug in GCC 4.x, very recently fixed in CVS. >> >> > >Sorry. What is a bug, handle the anonymous union as normal variable, or >don't? > >Regards >- Wu Zhou > > > The problem was that the dwarf info generated was incorrect. It has been fixed in GCC 4.x Regards, Kunal Parmar.