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

Michael Elizabeth Chastain
2002-04-08T19:28:12Z

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