This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [patch] KFAIL gdb/1025
- From: Michael Elizabeth Chastain <mec at shout dot net>
- To: carlton at math dot stanford dot edu, drow at mvista dot com
- Cc: gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 12:33:30 -0600
- Subject: Re: [patch] KFAIL gdb/1025
Oh man, this issue is "Time Sink of the Day" for 2003-02-04.
I'm gonna drop out of the KFAIL philosophy discussion.
David C points out:
* I gave the wrong GDB version: I was using CVS GDB from yesterday. I
saw the FAILs using 'make check' on yesterday's CVS, but then I
investigated it using whatever GDB happened to be in /usr/local/bin
Before anything else, check the gdb.log file which has the broken
results and check the gdb banner when gdb starts up, so we can get
the "2002-12-23" facet off the table.
* It's not the same as PR 872. That's about overload resolution; this
bug doesn't seem to be related to overload resolution.
You are right. PR 872 is in 'overload.exp'. This bug manifests
in 'ovldbreak.exp'. I confuse the two a lot. (It was bad design to
have one file name be a subset of the other.)
* If it's all due to binutils, why do Michael's tables still show some
non-PASS results with GCC 2.95.3/DWARF-2?
Hmmm. I confess I am wrong that it is *all* binutils. Now I think
there is a binutils component, but then there is a second bug on top of
that which is not analyzed yet.
Let me have a look at my FAILs:
# target=native, host=i686-pc-linux-gnu, osversion=red-hat-8.0
# gdb=5.3, gcc=2.95.3, binutils=2.13.2.1, libc=2.2.93-5-rh
# gformat=dwarf-2
Breakpoint 24, 0x080495a2 in foo::overload1arg (this=0xbffff7c4, arg=-65 '¿') at
/berman/migchain/source/gdb-5.3/gdb/testsuite/gdb.c++/ovldbreak.cc:111^M
111 int foo::overload1arg (char arg) { arg = 0; return 2;}^M
(gdb) FAIL: gdb.c++/ovldbreak.exp: continue to bp overloaded : char
The test script wants to see 'arg=2' here, but gdb prints 'arg=-65'.
That's the bug. It's definitely not not not gdb/872.
* I'm using the binutils that comes with Red Hat 7.3; rpm -q reports
it as binutils-2.11.93.0.2-11. So it's old. I'll upgrade that and
see what happens. (And then do what to the test? Turn it from
KFAIL into XFAIL, I suppose?)
If it fails with binutils 2.13.2.1, try binutils HEAD if you have enough
patience. Then add more info to PR gdb/1025.
I will also dig into my test results and add info PR gdb/1025.
It's really hard to tell whether a bad result is a binutils bug or
a gdb bug. I think Daniel J would have to look at it closely at
that point, because he knows both sides of the binutils/gdb interface.
Michael C