Re: gdb.mi/mi-cli.exp failures

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at mvista dot com>]

On Tue, Apr 01, 2003 at 10:08:41AM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> 
> >>Applying the attached to BFD fixes the problem ....
> >
> >
> >Although applying it would be a bad idea because it reverts several
> >bug fixes that plug memory leaks.
> 
> Leaky memory is a lesser evil to corrupt memory.
> 
> >Instead here is a version that removes the use of "concat()" inside
> >dwarf2.c:concat_filename() which is a good thing, but which probably
> >does not solve the problem that you encountered in GDB.
> >
> >Can you narrow down which part of David Heine's patch (altered by me)
> >is causing you problems, or tell me which tests in GDB are now failing
> >so that I can try to track it down myself.
> 
> Unfortunatly BFD changed an interface right in the middle of this - it's 
> put GDB/BFD into a death spiral :-(  I'm currently reverting a directory 
> tree to see what can be seen ...
> 
> FAIL: gdb.base/relocate.exp: get address of static_bar (timeout)
> FAIL: gdb.base/relocate.exp: static variables have different addresses
> FAIL: gdb.base/relocate.exp: get address of global_foo (timeout)
> FAIL: gdb.base/relocate.exp: get address of global_bar (timeout)
> FAIL: gdb.base/relocate.exp: global variables have different addresses
> FAIL: gdb.base/relocate.exp: get address of function_foo (timeout)
> FAIL: gdb.base/relocate.exp: get address of function_bar (timeout)
> FAIL: gdb.base/relocate.exp: functions have different addresses

On what target - I don't see these...

This looks like a crash in the same function that changed interface...
perhaps the memory leak fix for simple.c was wrong, although I can't
quite see why.  By the way, adding or removing the NULL at the end is
all that GDB needs to do to work with both interfaces.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer