From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7515 invoked by alias); 21 May 2011 16:34:48 -0000 Received: (qmail 6913 invoked by uid 22791); 21 May 2011 16:34:44 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RFC_ABUSE_POST X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-fx0-f41.google.com (HELO mail-fx0-f41.google.com) (209.85.161.41) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sat, 21 May 2011 16:34:29 +0000 Received: by fxm18 with SMTP id 18so4005203fxm.0 for ; Sat, 21 May 2011 09:34:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.223.55.27 with SMTP id s27mr736128fag.121.1305995668565; Sat, 21 May 2011 09:34:28 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.223.114.12 with HTTP; Sat, 21 May 2011 09:33:48 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20110521163100.GA14621@host1.jankratochvil.net> References: <20110521161838.GA14077@host1.jankratochvil.net> <20110521163100.GA14621@host1.jankratochvil.net> From: Hui Zhu Date: Sat, 21 May 2011 16:34:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [BUG]Something wrong with evaluate To: Jan Kratochvil Cc: gdb@sourceware.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2011-05/txt/msg00116.txt.bz2 On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 00:31, Jan Kratochvil w= rote: > On Sat, 21 May 2011 18:26:10 +0200, Hui Zhu wrote: >> That is a gcc bug? > > Yes, at least I got this message due to a GCC Bug already fixed some time= ago, > one can find it in the Bugs. =A0Unaware if the GCC Bug is gets exploited = by > every GDB version or just by some specific GDB versions. > > Do you have the problem reproducible if you (re)build that GDB with -O0? > > Sure it can be also a completely different problem but I doubt so. > > > Regards, > Jan > Hi Jan, My part -O0 gdb is OK. This is a gcc bug. I just update my gcc to 4.5. I will report it to ubuntu. Thanks for your help. Best, Hui