From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10872 invoked by alias); 8 Apr 2002 19:28:12 -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 10864 invoked from network); 8 Apr 2002 19:28:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO duracef.shout.net) (204.253.184.12) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 8 Apr 2002 19:28:11 -0000 Received: (from mec@localhost) by duracef.shout.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g38JS9A18557; Mon, 8 Apr 2002 14:28:09 -0500 Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2002 12:28:00 -0000 From: Michael Elizabeth Chastain Message-Id: <200204081928.g38JS9A18557@duracef.shout.net> To: drow@mvista.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] gdb.c++/method.exp: xfail for missing const Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com X-SW-Source: 2002-04/txt/msg00318.txt.bz2 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. > 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. BTW I'll add a section for "const class {...} *" specifically so that we can kfail it eventually. Michael C