This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [RFA] Fix an error in value_change_enclosing_type
- From: Elena Zannoni <ezannoni at redhat dot com>
- To: Pierre Muller <muller at cerbere dot u-strasbg dot fr>
- Cc: Elena Zannoni <ezannoni at redhat dot com>, gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2002 19:05:17 -0500
- Subject: Re: [RFA] Fix an error in value_change_enclosing_type
- References: <3.0.6.32.20021020235330.00c24478@ics.u-strasbg.fr><5.0.2.1.2.20021007132114.01e66260@ics.u-strasbg.fr><5.0.2.1.2.20021028150203.02ffe2c8@ics.u-strasbg.fr>
Pierre Muller writes:
> A 22:39 22/10/2002, Elena Zannoni a écrit :
> >muller@cerbere.u-strasbg.fr writes:
> > > At 17:05 18/10/2002 -0400, Elena Zannoni wrote:
> > > >Pierre Muller writes:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > the function value_change_enclosing_type
> > > > > does not set the enlclosing_type field correctly if
> > > > > the new_encl_type has a bigger length that the value type.
> > > > >
> > > > > Its seems quite astonishing that this has not been noticed before,
> > > > > but I discovered it when trying to get
> > > > > the fpc-abi.c code to work correctly.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >The fix seems OK. However, do you have a small testcase? It would be
> > > >good to add it to the testsuite.
> > > Sorry, but I don't have any, because I really don't even know
> > > if this code is ever executed for C code. It is for
> > > Free Pascal generated code, that is how I discovered that bug.
> > > But I can't add tests with Free Pascal anyhow.
> > >
> >
> >Oh, ok.
> >
> > > >Does this fix changes the results for the already existing tests?
> > >
> > > Sorry, but I never worked with the testsuite,
> > > so I can't answer this question.
> > >
> >
> >Could you run make check in your gdb/testsuite directory in the build
> >tree? All I meant is, whether or not the test results are different
> >before and after your change.
> >
> >thanks
> >Elena
>
>
> I tried to create a test program
> using C++ code, but it does never seem to
> use the code that I modified...
>
> Thus, as I expected, the testsuite is unchanged:
>
> Tested on a i386 linux box:
> (note that pthreads libs is not installed on that machine,
> which creates several failures)
> cvs tree from 29/10/2002:
>
There is on more pass with your patch, looks like. Which test passed?
It could be a transient failure.
Otherwise, ok.
Elena
> === gdb Summary ===
>
> # of expected passes 8235
> # of unexpected failures 52
> # of unexpected successes 10
> # of expected failures 168
> # of unresolved testcases 3
> # of untested testcases 9
> # of unsupported tests 4
> /home/pierre/gdb/build/origdb/testsuite/../../gdb/gdb version 2002-10-29-cvs -nx
>
> same cvs tree + my patch :
>
>
> === gdb Summary ===
>
> # of expected passes 8236
> # of unexpected failures 51
> # of unexpected successes 10
> # of expected failures 168
> # of unresolved testcases 3
> # of untested testcases 9
> # of unsupported tests 4
> /home/pierre/gdb/build/origdb/testsuite/../../gdb/gdb version 2002-10-29-cvs -nx
>
>
> But the only difference is between gdbcvs.sum and modgdb.sum
> is
> 5166c5166
> < FAIL: gdb.c++/annota2.exp: annotate-quit
> ---
> > PASS: gdb.c++/annota2.exp: annotate-quit
>
> which, when you look into gdb.c++/annota2.exp
> is said to be a tests that fails sometimes, but unreproducably.
>
> So I think that we can consider that the
> testsuite result is unchanged.
>
> Can I commit the patch?