[RFA 1/3] dwarf2_physname - cpexprs.exp

Keith Seitz keiths@redhat.com
Tue Dec 8 21:27:00 GMT 2009


On 11/20/2009 09:20 PM, Pedro Alves wrote:
> FAIL: gdb.cp/cpexprs.exp: print policyd4::policyd
> FAIL: gdb.cp/cpexprs.exp: print policyd<base, operation_1<base>  >::policyd
> FAIL: gdb.cp/cpexprs.exp: list base::overload(base&) const
> FAIL: gdb.cp/cpexprs.exp: list base::overload(char*) const
> FAIL: gdb.cp/cpexprs.exp: list base::overload(int) const
> FAIL: gdb.cp/cpexprs.exp: list base::overload(long) const
> FAIL: gdb.cp/cpexprs.exp: list base::overload(short) const
> FAIL: gdb.cp/cpexprs.exp: list base::overload(void) const
> FAIL: gdb.cp/cpexprs.exp: list policyd4::policyd
> FAIL: gdb.cp/cpexprs.exp: list policyd<base, operation_1<base>  >::policyd
> FAIL: gdb.cp/cpexprs.exp: setting breakpoint at base::overload(base&) const
> FAIL: gdb.cp/cpexprs.exp: continue to base::overload(base&) const
> FAIL: gdb.cp/cpexprs.exp: setting breakpoint at base::overload(char*) const
> FAIL: gdb.cp/cpexprs.exp: continue to base::overload(char*) const
> FAIL: gdb.cp/cpexprs.exp: setting breakpoint at base::overload(int) const
> FAIL: gdb.cp/cpexprs.exp: continue to base::overload(int) const
> FAIL: gdb.cp/cpexprs.exp: setting breakpoint at base::overload(long) const
> FAIL: gdb.cp/cpexprs.exp: continue to base::overload(long) const
> FAIL: gdb.cp/cpexprs.exp: setting breakpoint at base::overload(short) const
> FAIL: gdb.cp/cpexprs.exp: continue to base::overload(short) const
> FAIL: gdb.cp/cpexprs.exp: setting breakpoint at base::overload(void) const
> FAIL: gdb.cp/cpexprs.exp: continue to base::overload(void) const
> FAIL: gdb.cp/cpexprs.exp: setting breakpoint at policyd4::policyd
> FAIL: gdb.cp/cpexprs.exp: continue to policyd4::policyd
> FAIL: gdb.cp/cpexprs.exp: setting breakpoint at policyd<base, operation_1<base>  >::policyd
> FAIL: gdb.cp/cpexprs.exp: continue to policyd<base, operation_1<base>  >::policyd
>
> I've no idea if this is compiler badness or not.  I haven't investigated.

With FSF GCC 4.2.4, the only failures I see are the policyd4-related 
ones. I suspect that this might be caused by the valops.c assumption 
that Daniel recently corrected (my bad):

2009-12-04  Daniel Jacobowitz  <dan@codesourcery.com>

         * valops.c (value_struct_elt_for_reference): Do not rely on
         field order.

> I also saw 1 FAIL->PASS in classes.exp, 2 new PASS->FAILs and 2 new FAIL->PASSes
> in namespace.exp.

We've already established the namespace.exp status, so what remains is 
the new PASS in classes.exp, which I'm guessing is not a problem. :-)

Keith



More information about the Gdb-patches mailing list