Re: [PATCH] gdb.c++/method.exp: xfail for missing const

Daniel Jacobowitz
2002-04-08T18:46:02Z

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