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

Daniel Jacobowitz
2002-04-08T21:07:32Z

On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 02:28:09PM -0500, Michael Elizabeth Chastain wrote:
> 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.

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

This is completely unimportant, of course.

> > 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.

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

> BTW I'll add a section for "const class {...} *" specifically so that
> we can kfail it eventually.

Thanks.

--
Daniel Jacobowitz Carnegie Mellon University
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer