This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: gdb 5.3 versus gdb HEAD%200302015
- From: David Carlton <carlton at math dot stanford dot edu>
- To: Michael Elizabeth Chastain <mec at shout dot net>
- Cc: gdb at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: 17 Feb 2003 09:13:14 -0800
- Subject: Re: gdb 5.3 versus gdb HEAD%200302015
- References: <200302171708.h1HH8YI12787@duracef.shout.net>
On Mon, 17 Feb 2003 11:08:34 -0600, Michael Elizabeth Chastain <firstname.lastname@example.org> said:
>> I'm curious: what shows up in gdb.log when you get FAIL here?
> print pEe->D::vg()^M
> $12 = 202^M
> (gdb) FAIL: gdb.c++/virtfunc.exp: print pEe->D::vg()
> This happens with gcc 2.95.3, both dwarf-2 and stabs+.
> It's a different bug than the bug you PR'd. With gcc v3,
> I get "Attempt to take address of value not located in memory."
> With gcc v2, I get the wrong answer (the right answer is 102).
> It looks like gdb is ignoring the 'D::' qualifier and calling
> E::vg instead of D::vg.
Interesting: it does indeed look like a different bug. So:
>> Certainly you should feel free to add more KFAIL branches to that test
>> if you wish; just send them all to the same PR.
> In this case I think it should be a different KFAIL arm
> pointing to a different PR.
I guess that makes sense.