This is the mail archive of the gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the GDB project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: [rfa] store.exp failures

From: Andrew Cagney <ac131313 at redhat dot com>
To: David Carlton <carlton at math dot stanford dot edu>
Cc: Fernando Nasser <fnasser at redhat dot com>,gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com, Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at mvista dot com>
Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2002 14:37:32 -0500
Subject: Re: [rfa] store.exp failures
References: <ro165u82glv.fsf@jackfruit.Stanford.EDU> <3DEFEC76.6040109@redhat.com> <ro1r8cvuev2.fsf@jackfruit.Stanford.EDU>

On Thu, 05 Dec 2002 19:16:54 -0500, Fernando Nasser <fnasser@redhat.com> said:

I don't think not being static affects the goal of test at all, so if
it fixes the problem I have no objection.


Thanks, I've committed it.

Thanks. In case you're wondering, yes it does pass but with older compilers. Now we get to see what bugs it flushes out ...

I'm also wondering of GCC eliminating functions when -O0 is a bug.

Andrew

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [rfa] store.exp failures
  - From: David Carlton

References:
- [rfa] store.exp failures
  - From: David Carlton
- Re: [rfa] store.exp failures
  - From: Fernando Nasser
- Re: [rfa] store.exp failures
  - From: David Carlton

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]