From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31424 invoked by alias); 8 Apr 2002 21:07:32 -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 31416 invoked from network); 8 Apr 2002 21:07:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (128.2.145.6) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 8 Apr 2002 21:07:31 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 16ugMQ-0001FO-00; Mon, 08 Apr 2002 17:07:34 -0400 Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2002 14:07:00 -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: <20020408170734.A4605@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Michael Elizabeth Chastain , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <200204081928.g38JS9A18557@duracef.shout.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200204081928.g38JS9A18557@duracef.shout.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23i X-SW-Source: 2002-04/txt/msg00321.txt.bz2 On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 02:28:09PM -0500, Michael Elizabeth Chastain wrote: > Daniel Jacobowitz writes: > > [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.] > > I don't follow you. Do you mean "print this" in a non-const method that > replies "const A *" or "const A * const"? That's already a straight FAIL. What I meant is that, in the hypothetical situation where we const-qualified things accidentally, if we were using GCC 2.95/stabs (a combination which "we, the testsuite" know can not say "const"!) printing out const would be quite surprising. This is completely unimportant, of course. > > 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. > > I would like that too. But how can the test script determine the gcc > version? I don't see a way to do this in gdb/lib.exp. It's not there. I can add it trivially, if you want. The major version is there already; it's [ $gcc_compiled > 2 ]. We could just set gcc_compiler_minor if necessary. They're __GNUC__ and __GNUC_MINOR__. > BTW I'll add a section for "const class {...} *" specifically so that > we can kfail it eventually. Thanks. -- Daniel Jacobowitz Carnegie Mellon University MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer