From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8343 invoked by alias); 4 Sep 2012 20:40:22 -0000 Received: (qmail 8295 invoked by uid 22791); 4 Sep 2012 20:40:20 -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,TW_IB X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-pz0-f47.google.com (HELO mail-pz0-f47.google.com) (209.85.210.47) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 04 Sep 2012 20:40:07 +0000 Received: by daks35 with SMTP id s35so4405765dak.20 for ; Tue, 04 Sep 2012 13:40:06 -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=B690MleQLwuBLLSNbgxzI3JV8a64Sfk1KfL9Ljk4PGI=; b=nF70PdMWS9DhdIi+ywANgW81JGsz/Jk9Uzm5y/U6fsJ1jILlNb2BPXyuzSQgXZl9WT etbSRu2SEDszhWu98fmUTGFb0El5sNpXDjTleKjnND8iql6Z4DK/bg7oOSyB9FHRwCsk oSXcDwODlZ0XwfW5Muew4yfmaRxgokdILW58q3LFh6Xn1RyjO0MttlbJGbGRL6mq2WWd kal3yyLCqpNEKXGrKmIycVlwApawxqy8F/ZJ5jXloAVVdHyzi+o/VXh0cXuvPfMlkSu2 Byn0TEQJOSnhLeK3QCXLIgPbiNmumXMebF2S4GyRuh/u61R/sG3zXI8P19VPjPUFaMDa nBxg== Received: by 10.68.134.97 with SMTP id pj1mr48549000pbb.55.1346791206482; Tue, 04 Sep 2012 13:40:06 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.68.134.97 with SMTP id pj1mr48548962pbb.55.1346791206299; Tue, 04 Sep 2012 13:40:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.68.211.170 with HTTP; Tue, 4 Sep 2012 13:40:06 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <50462AC3.3000900@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> <50462AC3.3000900@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2012 20:40:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] Set correct source location for deallocator calls From: Dehao Chen To: Andrew Haley Cc: Richard Henderson , 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: ALoCoQlJg/8bOvwZn9LX2KnpNRVjcyxioHaxP4XaRPN2oCk5qN2KbbJ1kzeFFtKb2ORs2Ohg/jwnVdtScoNYCEoy503OsrBK953ERTYKnNMegSI2dPhdlSkeIczUUIynrVPPn1u7t3+u4E+Y7CNEDUR9BqQavYQk7p0FiD8LbKvHq/+DftNJSb48EjmFX6+CSk6QLnhZMSQ/ 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/msg00009.txt.bz2 On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 9:22 AM, Andrew Haley wrote: > On 09/04/2012 05:07 PM, Dehao Chen wrote: >> 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? > > Fine by me. I guess you can just copy the scanning code from the gcc > testsuite. I tried that, but it is not trivial, and simply copying "proc scan-assembler" to libjava seems ugly. Do libjava people really think it's worth to add scan-assembler and other premitives in gcc testsuite into libjava testsuite? If yes, I'll leave it to the TODO list. Thanks, Dehao > > Andrew. >