Re: [rfa] store.exp failures

[Andrew Cagney <ac131313 at redhat dot com>]

> 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