Re: [PATCH] gdb.c++/method.exp: xfail for missing const

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com>]

On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 01:32:15PM -0500, Michael Elizabeth Chastain wrote:
> How about this for printing "this" in a const method?
> 
> It reports PASS if the required "const" is present.
> It reports (XFAIL|FAIL) with "missing const" if required "const" is missing.
>   XFAIL if stabs debugging format
>   FAIL  if any other debugging format
> It reports FAIL for any other output.

I would rather do it based on compiler version:

> It reports PASS if the required "const" is present.
    [I'll accept this.  It could be an XPASS/KPASS if something really
     bizarre happened and we started ADDING consts.  But that'd be
     caught elsewhere, so let's not worry about it.]

> It reports (XFAIL|FAIL) with "missing const" if required "const" is missing.
>   XFAIL if stabs debugging format

     I would prefer:
       "XFAIL if stabs debugging format and GCC and GCC version < 3.1"
     so that we go to FAIL instead of XFAIL if the stabs const code stops
     working in either GCC or GDB.

>   FAIL  if any other debugging format
> It reports FAIL for any other output.

Great otherwise.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz                           Carnegie Mellon University
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer