From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23549 invoked by alias); 8 Apr 2002 18:46:02 -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 23539 invoked from network); 8 Apr 2002 18:46:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (128.2.145.6) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 8 Apr 2002 18:46:00 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 16ue9T-0000Au-00; Mon, 08 Apr 2002 14:46:03 -0400 Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2002 11:46:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Michael Elizabeth Chastain Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] gdb.c++/method.exp: xfail for missing const Message-ID: <20020408144603.B495@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Michael Elizabeth Chastain , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <200204081832.g38IWFf11265@duracef.shout.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200204081832.g38IWFf11265@duracef.shout.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23i X-SW-Source: 2002-04/txt/msg00314.txt.bz2 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