This is the mail archive of the gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the GDB project.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
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
Asked a GCC engineer. They agreed, at -O0, it shouldn't be eliminating static functions.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...
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |