From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-14073-listarch-gdb-patches=sourceware.cygnus.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 2579 invoked by alias); 8 Apr 2002 15:12:50 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sources.redhat.com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com
Received: (qmail 2429 invoked from network); 8 Apr 2002 15:12:48 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO duracef.shout.net) (204.253.184.12)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 8 Apr 2002 15:12:48 -0000
Received: (from mec@localhost)
	by duracef.shout.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g38FCkt17254;
	Mon, 8 Apr 2002 10:12:46 -0500
Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2002 08:12:00 -0000
From: Michael Elizabeth Chastain <mec@shout.net>
Message-Id: <200204081512.g38FCkt17254@duracef.shout.net>
To: drow@mvista.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] gdb.c++/method.exp
X-SW-Source: 2002-04/txt/msg00294.txt.bz2

Good morning Daniel,
> Erm... did we reach a conclusion about whether those const's were
> really optional?  In a const method, there should be a const on the
> type of 'this'.

The old script accepted these strings:

  // non-const method
    "A *" => PASS
    default => FAIL

  // const method, gcc_compiled=TRUE
    "A *" => PASS
    "const class A *" => XFAIL
    default => FAIL

  // const method, gcc_compiled=FALSE
    "const class A *" => PASS
    "A *" => XFAIL
    default => FAIL

  // non-const method
    "funk *" => PASS
    default => FAIL

One problem is that none of the tests accepted the second "const"
after the "*".  Another problem, obviously, is the weird logic
for const methods that depends on gcc_compiled, and *rejects*
"const A *" for const methods when gcc_compiled=TRUE.

The new script accepts these strings:

  // non-const method
    "class A * const" => PASS
    "class A *" => PASS
    "A * const" => PASS
    "A *" => PASS
    default => FAIL

  // const method
    "const class A * const" => PASS
    "const class A *" => PASS
    "const A * const" => PASS
    "const A *" => PASS
    "class A * const" => PASS
    "class A *" => PASS
    "A * const" => PASS
    "A *" => PASS
    default => FAIL

  // non-const method
    "class A * const" => PASS
    "class A *" => PASS
    "A * const" => PASS
    "A *" => PASS
    default => FAIL

So the old script reported FAIL to "const A *" for a constant method
when the compiler is gcc.  The new script reports PASS.  That's a
definite improvement.

The old script reported PASS to "A *" for a constant method when the
compiler is gcc.  That is problematic.  Right now the new script also
reports PASS, to be compatible with the old script.

Now is a good time to break compatibility anyways.  The new script looks
like this right now (for a const method):

  gdb_test "print this" \
    "\\$\[0-9\]* = \\((const |)(class |)A *\\* *(const|)\\) $hex" \
    "print this in A::bar"

What do you think of this:

  gdb_test "print this" \
    "\\$\[0-9\]* = \\(const (class |)A *\\* *(const|)\\) $hex" \
    "print this in A::bar"

Michael C