Re: [PATCH] gdb.c++/method.exp

[Michael Elizabeth Chastain <mec@shout.net>]

Daniel Jacobowitz writes:
> Does anything currently produce A const * const?  It's probably
> legal...

I haven't seen any "A const * const".  I guess I would have to accommodate
that if somebody saw one.  I'm not inclined to put it in at this time.

Here's what I've got (2002-04-04, native i686-pc-linux-gnu):

  const A * const
    gcc 2.95.3 -gdwarf-2
    gcc 2.96-rh -gdwarf-2
    gcc 3.0.4 -gdwarf-2
    gcc gcc-3_1-branch -gdwarf-2
    gcc HEAD -gdwarf-2

  A *
    gcc 2.95.3 -gstabs+
    gcc 2.96-rh -gstabs+
    gcc 3.0.4 -gstabs+

  const class {...} * const
    gcc gcc-3_1-branch -gstabs+
    gcc HEAD -gstabs+

"const A * const" should always be a PASS.

"A *" should be a FAIL or an XFAIL, depending on what is in the
generated code.  If gcc is omitting the const then it's an XFAIL.
I will grub around in the generated code to figure that out.

"const class {...} * const" looks like a gdb bug to me.  Again I will
look in the generated code.  That will likely be a FAIL with a bug
report (soon to be a KFAIL).

Michael C