This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: gdb 5.3 versus gdb HEAD%200302015
- From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at mvista dot com>
- To: gdb at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 11:35:01 -0500
- Subject: Re: gdb 5.3 versus gdb HEAD%200302015
- References: <200302171632.h1HGWUj12060@duracef.shout.net>
On Mon, Feb 17, 2003 at 10:32:30AM -0600, Michael Elizabeth Chastain wrote:
> drow> Ooh ooh. I got this one. The test is new in HEAD (wasn't in 5.3);
> drow> it's a GCC bug; it will be fixed in 3.3, 3.4, and 3.2.3 if any. I
> drow> checked the patch in the day after 3.2.2.
> Beautiful, I'll just slip a URL to this message into my tracking
> document. That takes care of the 5.4/6.0 angle.
> My results are:
> PASS for all stabs+
> PASS for dwarf-2, gcc gcc-3_3-branch and gcc HEAD
> FAIL for dwarf-2, gcc 2.95.3 and gcc 3.2-7-rh and gcc 3.2.2
> Which matches your report.
> I dropped coverage of gcc gcc-3_2-branch, but I might bring it back,
> because I see that people are still checking into that branch.
> The real question: is there a gcc PR for this. If there is a gcc PR,
> then I can add an XFAIL arm to the test with the gcc PR number.
Nope, there was no PR, just a patch when I noticed it. Besides, didn't
we want to only use PRs in the GDB database? This would be an
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer