Re: gdb 5.3 versus gdb HEAD%200302015

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at mvista dot com>]

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
external/closed.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer