Hi Tom,

On Mon, 2014-03-31 at 12:19 -0600, Tom Tromey wrote:
> Mark> I am also not sure what the right thing to do is here. But I think it
> Mark> makes sense to make printing it depend on the language used and always
> Mark> print it when the language supports "derived enums" whether the user
> Mark> explicitly defined it or it was guessed by the compiler. It is an valid
> Mark> expression in any case and the GDB user might appreciate the extra info
> Mark> (in the case of C++).
> 
> I went this route.
> 
> Here's a new patch, this one regtested on x86-64 Fedora 20 against both
> the system compiler and a GCC with your enum patches applied.  I had to
> update gdb.cp/classes.exp and I added a new test as well.

The gcc patch is almost in... (I hope). While testing it I found one
more testcase that should get the same treatment as gdb.cp/classes.exp
to optionally accept a underlying type in the case of C++.

With the gcc patch you'll get the following 9 failures otherwise:

FAIL: gdb.cp/var-tag.exp: before start: c++: ptype E
FAIL: gdb.cp/var-tag.exp: before start: c++: ptype ee
FAIL: gdb.cp/var-tag.exp: before start: c++: ptype EE
FAIL: gdb.cp/var-tag.exp: in main: c++: ptype E
FAIL: gdb.cp/var-tag.exp: in main: c++: ptype ee
FAIL: gdb.cp/var-tag.exp: in main: c++: ptype EE
FAIL: gdb.cp/var-tag.exp: in C::f: c++: ptype E
FAIL: gdb.cp/var-tag.exp: in C::f: c++: ptype ee
FAIL: gdb.cp/var-tag.exp: in C::f: c++: ptype EE

With the testsuite tweak all these PASS.

Does this look OK to check in?

Thanks,

Mark