This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: 6 GCC regressions, 6 new, with your patch on 2002-01-29T19:24:37Z.
- From: Geoff Keating <geoffk at geoffk dot org>
- To: Neil Booth <neil at daikokuya dot demon dot co dot uk>
- Cc: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: 29 Jan 2002 15:23:55 -0800
- Subject: Re: 6 GCC regressions, 6 new, with your patch on 2002-01-29T19:24:37Z.
- References: <200201292158.g0TLw6f14961@maat.cygnus.com><20020129222235.GA4190@daikokuya.demon.co.uk>
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>