> Does this make sense to you? I cannot answer the question, but the patch survived clean bootstrap on x86_64-apple-darwin10 and powerpc-apple-darwin9 and a full regtest on the former with the following new failures between r188841 and r188858:
FAIL: gcc.dg/pubtypes-2.c scan-assembler long+[ \\t]+0x6a+[ \\t]+[#;]+[ \\t]+Length of Public Type Names Info FAIL: gcc.dg/pubtypes-3.c scan-assembler long+[ \\t]+0x6a+[ \\t]+[#;]+[ \\t]+Length of Public Type Names Info FAIL: gcc.dg/pubtypes-4.c scan-assembler long+[ \\t]+0xa1+[ \\t]+[#;]+[ \\t]+Length of Public Type Names Info FAIL: g++.dg/debug/dwarf2/static-data-member2.C -std=gnu++98 scan-assembler-not DW_TAG_enumerator FAIL: g++.dg/debug/dwarf2/static-data-member2.C -std=gnu++98 scan-assembler-not DW_TAG_enumeration_type FAIL: g++.dg/debug/dwarf2/static-data-member2.C -std=gnu++11 scan-assembler-not DW_TAG_enumerator FAIL: g++.dg/debug/dwarf2/static-data-member2.C -std=gnu++11 scan-assembler-not DW_TAG_enumeration_type I am pretty sure that the first set is due to r188857, but I don't know for the g++ one. Thanks for the patch, Dominique
