From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11246 invoked by alias); 4 Sep 2012 16:07:41 -0000 Received: (qmail 11227 invoked by uid 22791); 4 Sep 2012 16:07:39 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-5.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,KHOP_RCVD_TRUST,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_YE,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,TW_GC X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-pb0-f47.google.com (HELO mail-pb0-f47.google.com) (209.85.160.47) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 04 Sep 2012 16:07:08 +0000 Received: by pbcwy7 with SMTP id wy7so9499765pbc.20 for ; Tue, 04 Sep 2012 09:07:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:x-system-of-record:x-gm-message-state; bh=R0avtHnPawGGLvWzdpX+SUMrHI6KFAyPeps+RFW5lTY=; b=cnlvk04lbZYd2P0ZPlkhktYq2ppYyNxf5wm3HH07aHv4WHgzrYXE+0gnzFNfzgja2Y DUKgIZ0zpdZ4E0+zP0GG+C5X4CnhZOIzLOOy+FEH0r2D7C78Lv4BQx84qWs6F/1Tu4Ns hh2UCpY8auPualS5yES6eT5E0xr3ZUPLLZKDjOzjCLseSAbwVWNE8ChZQyHTtgiwnQvx a/XCk4JHDjjmyEVwOS6G9Fl3v20TIizh6XFiPzivTM/WguFhaKTHcGeDfTuNmdRUEAZI pC35N4HNT6Rtcx5bQjPf+3BZc38Kr6uSB0zAIz+qNsKna0hOhYo+/nYDmS7XOhPLpSPy IyfA== Received: by 10.68.222.170 with SMTP id qn10mr46703278pbc.114.1346774828184; Tue, 04 Sep 2012 09:07:08 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.68.222.170 with SMTP id qn10mr46703244pbc.114.1346774827942; Tue, 04 Sep 2012 09:07:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.68.211.170 with HTTP; Tue, 4 Sep 2012 09:07:07 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <503F95D8.5010506@redhat.com> References: <50228C38.5080703@redhat.com> <502294A1.3060800@redhat.com> <50243480.7090803@redhat.com> <50254A50.8070208@redhat.com> <50255B35.9020705@redhat.com> <50258712.4070002@redhat.com> <502E6774.8050609@redhat.com> <503F7876.7030606@redhat.com> <503F84A9.8010504@redhat.com> <503F95D8.5010506@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2012 16:07:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] Set correct source location for deallocator calls From: Dehao Chen To: Richard Henderson Cc: Andrew Haley , Jason Merrill , Richard Guenther , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, David Li , java@gcc.gnu.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-System-Of-Record: true X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQl5XmwSlcpuJC5pKuiiFkN/sj7ZLuwx841E6FX34YrunASs5P1hIAtqCXtIsX0ZbWXAmZr5i8pABkTUrNvVlkKprc0U0GXSANibSNr+hsiHZPKr03y3EannhrybT6yKa2oj2X2HQJlXcYTmVZ1+X/YjhnIRJ8mtqj1+OAD81JMjEzfRnUwLj4ddLRmLq/FdiGMHRk9n Mailing-List: contact java-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: java-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2012-09/txt/msg00000.txt.bz2 On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 9:33 AM, Richard Henderson wrote: > On 08/30/2012 08:20 AM, Andrew Haley wrote: >> Is the problem simply that the logic to >> scan the assembly code isn't present in the libgcj testsuite? > > Yes, exactly. For this case, I don't think that we want a testcase to rely on addr2line in the system. So how about that that we add a test when assembly scan is available in libgcj testsuit? Thanks, Dehao > > > r~