Re: c++/1025: failures in gdb.c++/ovldbreak.exp

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at mvista dot com>]

The following reply was made to PR c++/1025; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com>
To: Michael Elizabeth Chastain <mec@shout.net>
Cc: carlton@math.stanford.edu, gdb-gnats@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: c++/1025: failures in gdb.c++/ovldbreak.exp
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 09:41:21 -0500

 On Tue, Feb 04, 2003 at 01:38:00AM -0000, Michael Elizabeth Chastain wrote:
 > The following reply was made to PR c++/1025; it has been noted by GNATS.
 > 
 > From: Michael Elizabeth Chastain <mec@shout.net>
 > To: carlton@math.stanford.edu
 > Cc: gdb-gnats@sources.redhat.com
 > Subject: Re: c++/1025: failures in gdb.c++/ovldbreak.exp
 > Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 19:33:33 -0600
 > 
 >  It's all about the binutils.
 >  
 >  What binutils are you using?
 >  
 >  I had problems with gdb.c++/ovldbreak.exp when I used binutils 2.12
 >  or binutils 2.12.1.  The problems were fixed with binutils 2.13 and
 >  binutils 2.13.1.  Now I am testing with three versions of binutils:
 >  binutils 2.13.2.1 + binutils HEAD + binutils 2.13.90.0.2-2-rh.
 >  
 >  These were true tests.  I built 8 versions of gcc with 8 versions of
 >  binutils (it took a LONG time to build 64 compilers), ran 390 test runs,
 >  and correlated all the non-PASSes.  I observed that this problem was
 >  correlated with binutils version and not correlated with gcc version.
 >  
 >  From my notes, the specific tests affected by binutils 2.12 and
 >  binutils 2.12.1 were:
 
 When did you do this?  After David's snapshot I bet.
 
 David, it looks like you filed this PR recently but against an old
 (1.5mo.) CVS snapshot.  If that's right could you please retest
 against a current source base; I fixed this on Jan. 13th, and it's PR
 gdb/872.
 
 -- 
 Daniel Jacobowitz
 MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer