This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [rfa] delete 'force_return' from lookup_symbol_aux_minsyms
- From: Michael Elizabeth Chastain <mec at shout dot net>
- To: ezannoni at redhat dot com
- Cc: carlton at math dot stanford dot edu, gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com, jimb at redhat dot com
- Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2002 17:54:34 -0600
- Subject: Re: [rfa] delete 'force_return' from lookup_symbol_aux_minsyms
Elena Z wrote:
> I am not sure if David committed it yet, but the patch it at the
> bottom of:
> http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2002-12/msg00560.html
> Maybe you already tested it!
I am having some problems analyzing this. I see 3 regressions from
2002-12-18 to 2002-12-21, but I can't tell if they are gcc problems
or gdb problems.
I've got one set of runs with:
gdb HEAD 2002-12-18
gcc HEAD 2002-12-18
And another set of runs with:
gdb HEAD 2002-12-21
gcc HEAD 2002-12-21
It would be great if I kept the install directories from 2002-12-18
for a few days, but I already recycled the disk space. :( I do have
all the executable files from gdb/testsuite though, so I can try the
new gdb on all the executables built with gcc HEAD 2002-12-18.
For the curious, the 3 regressions are:
(1) gcc ICE when compiling gdb.c++/anon-union.exp with gcc HEAD 2002-12-21.
and dwarf-2. This is obviously a gcc problem and I will follow the
gcc reporting procedures for it. I think the problem is related to
the special status of C++ "main", which must be return type int,
but are not required to return a value (the compiler is required to
synthesize a value if control falls off the end, which is special
code in gcc, which has problems getting the debug information right).
(2) New problems near the end of gdb.c++/anon-union.exp with gcc HEAD
and stabs+. Probably gcc, might be gdb (unlikely).
(3) Problems with gdb.c++/casts.exp.
I'll go do some QA sleuthing and file bug reports and stuff.
Michael C