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.
Geoff Keating wrote:-
> Does your file contain the string 'overflow in implicit constant
> conversion'? Mine does.
No; I grabbed the wrong file.
> Hmmm. Actually, the first test, bitfields.exp, produces the warnings;
> but the other testcases are other kinds of problems. call-ar-st and
> call-rt-st seem to be small changes in GDB's output produced by the
> different type information; I can't tell if the change is correct.
> setvar.exp appears to be a genuine bug introduced by your patch
> relating to output of debug information for enumeration bitfields, in
> a structure like:
>
> struct senum_field {enum senum field:2; } sef;
>
> it seems to be testing that when you say 'print sef.field', you get
> the symbolic name for the value.
OK, I think I should revert the patch; I don't have time to look at it
fully right now, particularly for debug-related stuff where I'm new.
Neil.