This is the mail archive of the
gdb-testers@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
gcc 3.0.4 versus gcc gcc-3_1-branch%20020404 (native i686-pc-linux-gnu)
- From: Michael Elizabeth Chastain <mec at shout dot net>
- To: gdb-testers at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Sun, 7 Apr 2002 23:00:40 -0500
- Subject: gcc 3.0.4 versus gcc gcc-3_1-branch%20020404 (native i686-pc-linux-gnu)
Here is a report comparing gcc 3.0.4 versus gcc gcc-3_1-branch%20020404.
It is based on these tables:
http://www.shout.net/~mec/sunday/2002-04-04/Differences-compare-by-gcc.html
There are no show-stoppers here (especially since we don't have a lot of
power over the gcc 3.1 release). I'd like someone to look at the problem
in gdb.base/funcargs.exp and maybe gdb.base/corefile.exp. But if you
don't, that's fine, the test results will keep tracking the failures.
The configurations are:
target = native
host = i686-pc-linux-gnu%rh-7.2
gdb = HEAD%20020404
gcc = 3.0.4, gcc-3_1-branch%20020404
binutils = HEAD%20020404
goption = -gdwarf-2, -gstabs+
I am looking at table #4 and table #5 (the tables for gdb HEAD),
Table #4 is -gdwarf-2; table #5 is -gstabs+.
I am looking at columns [3] and [4] (gcc 3.0.4 versus gcc-3_1-branch%20020404).
I tested languages C, C++, and assembly. I did not test languages Java,
FORTRAN, Pascal, Ada, Objective-C, or Chill.
result improved
gdb.base/constvars.exp +5
gdb.base/structs2.exp +4 +5
gdb.base/volatile.exp +5
gdb.trace/packetlen.exp +4 +5
result regressed
gdb.base/condbreak.exp -4
gdb.base/corefile.exp -4 -5
gdb.base/ena-dis-br.exp -4 -5
gdb.base/funcargs.exp -4
gdb.c++/method.exp -5
gdb.c++/ovldbreak.exp -4
gdb.c++/templates.exp -5
noise
gdb.base/ending-run.exp ,4 ,5
gdb.base/gcore.exp ,4 ,5
gdb.c++/annota2.exp ,5
key
+ result improved
- result regressed
, noise
The individual regressions are:
. gdb.base/condbreak.exp: run until breakpoint at marker1
gdb.base/condbreak.exp: run until breakpoint at marker2
-gdwarf-2 : PASS -> XFAIL
This is an instance of PR gdb/460.
. gdb.base/corefile.exp: print func2::coremaker_local
-gdwarf-2 : PASS -> FAIL
-gstabs+ : PASS -> FAIL
Here is an excerpt from gdb.log (both versions are the same):
print func2::coremaker_local^M
No frame is currently executing in block func2.^M
(gdb) FAIL: gdb.base/corefile.exp: print func2::coremaker_local
I don't know if this is a gcc bug or a gdb bug.
This test has been failing in both of these configurations since my
earliest test run (2002-02-26).
. gdb.base/ena-dis-br.exp: continue to auto-disabled break marker2
-gdwarf-2 : PASS -> XFAIL
gdb.base/ena-dis-br.exp: continue to break marker1
-gdwarf-2 : PASS -> XFAIL
gdb.base/ena-dis-br.exp: continue to break marker1, 2nd time
-gdwarf-2 : PASS -> XFAIL
gdb.base/ena-dis-br.exp: continue with ignore count, not stopped at bpt
-gdwarf-2 : PASS -> XFAIL
-gstabs+ : PASS -> XFAIL
Not analyzed yet.
. gdb.base/funcargs.exp: run to call5a
gdb.base/funcargs.exp: print st
-gdwarf-2 : PASS -> FAIL
gdb prints the wrong value for a structure argument. This works fine
with gcc 3.0.4 -gdwarf-2.
Log excerpt:
Starting program: /berman/fsf/_today_/berman/test/gdb.base/funcargs
Breakpoint 25, 0x08048ae6 in call5a (st={s1 = 1073834212, s2 = -1073743804}) at /berman/fsf/_today_/source/gdb/HEAD/src/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/funcargs.c:345
345 {st.s1 = 5;}
+(gdb) FAIL: gdb.base/funcargs.exp: run to call5a
print st
$31 = {s1 = 1073834212, s2 = -1073743804}
(gdb) FAIL: gdb.base/funcargs.exp: print st
. gdb.c++/method.exp: print this (in foo)
gdb.c++/method.exp: print this (in bar)
gdb.c++/method.exp: print this in getFunky
-gstabs+ : PASS -> FAIL
gcc improved its behavior by emitting "const" markers,
but the gdb test suite can't handle it.
. gdb.c++/ovldbreak.exp: continue to bp overloaded : char
gdb.c++/ovldbreak.exp: continue to bp overloaded : double
gdb.c++/ovldbreak.exp: continue to bp overloaded : short
gdb.c++/ovldbreak.exp: continue to bp overloaded : signed char
gdb.c++/ovldbreak.exp: continue to bp overloaded : unsigned char
gdb.c++/ovldbreak.exp: continue to bp overloaded : unsigned short
-gdwarf-2 : PASS -> XFAIL
This is an instance of PR gdb/460.
. gdb.c++/templates.exp: print Garply<Garply<char> >::garply
-gstabs+ : PASS -> FAIL
gcc improved its behavior by emitting "const" markers,
but the gdb test suite can't handle it.