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

Michael Elizabeth Chastain
2002-04-08T22:24:58Z

Daniel Jacobowitz writes:
danj> What I meant is that, in the hypothetical situation where we
danj> const-qualified things accidentally, if we were using GCC 2.95/stabs (a
danj> combination which "we, the testsuite" know can not say "const"!)
danj> printing out const would be quite surprising.

Well, there are so few XPASS's, that I am definitely adding XPASS
to my attention reports. I'm also adding XFAIL's. In fact everything
except a PASS is now in the attention report.

The difference reports already pick up any XFAIL -> XPASS transitions.

mec> I would like that too. But how can the test script determine the gcc
mec> version? I don't see a way to do this in gdb/lib.exp.

danj> It's not there. I can add it trivially, if you want. The major
danj> version is there already; it's [ $gcc_compiled > 2 ]. We could just
danj> set gcc_compiler_minor if necessary. They're __GNUC__ and
danj> __GNUC_MINOR__.

At this point I want to get the darn thing finished so that I can
spend some time on local.exp and templates.exp, which are also very
gnarly and have a lot of bit rot. So since the feature is not there,
I'm going to go ahead with 'setup_xfail_format "stabs"' and not worry
about this.

It would still be useful to import the gcc version number into the
dejagnu context, because we are going to have this "const" issue for
another 2-3 years.

Michael C