From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7438 invoked by alias); 10 Jan 2002 15:07:23 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 7408 invoked from network); 10 Jan 2002 15:07:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO duracef.shout.net) (204.253.184.12) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 10 Jan 2002 15:07:22 -0000 Received: (from mec@localhost) by duracef.shout.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) id JAA01023; Thu, 10 Jan 2002 09:07:18 -0600 Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 07:07:00 -0000 From: Michael Elizabeth Chastain Message-Id: <200201101507.JAA01023@duracef.shout.net> To: drow@mvista.com Subject: Re: [RFC] const qualifiers in gdb.c++/method.exp Cc: fnf@redhat.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com X-SW-Source: 2002-01/txt/msg00224.txt.bz2 Daniel Jacobowitz writes: > First of all, as best as I can tell, GCC simply doesn't support the > stabs extensions for const and volatile. Rather than accepting this, > we should detect it and mark them XFAILS. I would prefer to XFAIL > based on debug info type and compiler rather than on result - if we lose the > DWARF-2 const tag in a bug some day, it should start FAILing, not > XFAILing! I would prefer to FAIL rather than XFAIL. However, I accept XFAIL in this situation, because the bug does not hurt users very much and our chances of getting the compiler fixed are low. setup_xfail_format is the function to use here. See gdb.c++/templates.exp for an example. Note that the caller must call get_debug_format first. mec> "A * const" mec> native i686-pc-linux-gnu, gcc 3.0.2, -gdwarf-2 mec> native i686-pc-linux-gnu, gcc HEAD, -gdwarf-2 mec> native i686-pc-linux-gnu, gcc gcc-3_0-branch, -gdwarf-2 mec> mec> "const A * const" mec> native i686-pc-linux-gnu, gcc 2.95.3, -gdwarf-2 mec> mec> The first seven of these are wrong. The type needs to have a "const A *" mec> in it, rather than an "A *". drow> That we lost this const is very interesting. It is present in the drow> dwarf-2 information without a doubt. What version of GDB are you drow> actually using to test this? This is a recent CVS pull of gdb HEAD: Checkout begin: Sat Dec 22 18:12:43 PST 2001 Checkout end: Sat Dec 22 20:08:47 PST 2001 Hmmm, that's not all that recent. :( Michael C