[rfa] store.exp failures
Andrew Cagney
ac131313@redhat.com
Fri Dec 6 14:08:00 GMT 2002
> On Fri, 06 Dec 2002 14:37:32 -0500, Andrew Cagney <ac131313@redhat.com> said:
>
>
>> Thanks. In case you're wondering, yes it does pass but with older
>> compilers.
>
>
> Do you see the two failures with GCC 2.95.3 that I see, by the way?
> They're
>
> FAIL: gdb.base/store.exp: new up struct 1
> FAIL: gdb.base/store.exp: new up struct 2
>
> I don't know if they're our fault or GCC's fault. (Or even nobody's
> fault: the test seems a bit delicate.)
On a powerpc:
Running /home/scratch/GDB/src/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/store.exp ...
=== gdb Summary ===
# of expected passes 204
ac131313@nettle$ gcc --version
2.95.3
And on a Red Hat 7,2 system:
Running /home/cagney/GDB/src/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/store.exp ...
=== gdb Summary ===
# of expected passes 204
cagney@torrens$ gcc --version
2.96
>> I'm also wondering of GCC eliminating functions when -O0 is a bug.
>
>
> Yeah, I wondered about that, too: it's not going to make our lives any
> easier if GCC continues doing this...
Asked a GCC engineer. They agreed, at -O0, it shouldn't be eliminating
static functions.
Andrew
More information about the Gdb-patches
mailing list