This is the mail archive of the gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC 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]

Re: 6 GCC regressions, 6 new, with your patch on 2002-01-29T19:24:37Z.


Neil Booth <neil@daikokuya.demon.co.uk> writes:

> GCC regression checker wrote:-
> 
> > With your recent patch, GCC has some regression test failures, which
> > used to pass.  There are 6 new failures, and 0
> > failures that existed before and after that patch; 0 failures
> > have been fixed.
> > 
> > The new failures are:
> > powerpc-eabisim gdb.sum gdb.base/bitfields.exp:
> > powerpc-eabisim gdb.sum gdb.base/setvar.exp:
> > native gdb.sum gdb.base/bitfields.exp:
> > native gdb.sum gdb.base/call-ar-st.exp:
> > native gdb.sum gdb.base/call-rt-st.exp:
> > native gdb.sum gdb.base/setvar.exp:
> 
> This is obviously a result of my bitfield patch.  Sadly, I'm no expert
> on GDB or debug info.  Is this likely to be a debug info issue, or maybe
> that GDB has a similar bug to what the C front end had?  I've not got
> much clue where to start here 8:(

No, it's not a debug info issue.  Look at the log file at
<http://people.redhat.com/geoffk/gcc-regression/native-logsum/test-gdb/gdb.log.gz>; you'll see it's actually a bunch of

bitfields.c:83: warning: overflow in implicit constant conversion

warnings.  I'm not sure whether the warnings are legitimate, although
at first glance they may be.

-- 
- Geoffrey Keating <geoffk@geoffk.org> <geoffk@redhat.com>


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]