From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28278 invoked by alias); 26 Feb 2003 00:34:30 -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 28271 invoked from network); 26 Feb 2003 00:34:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO crack.them.org) (65.125.64.184) by 172.16.49.205 with SMTP; 26 Feb 2003 00:34:29 -0000 Received: from nevyn.them.org ([66.93.61.169] ident=mail) by crack.them.org with asmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 18nrQ1-0000Fk-00 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 20:35:37 -0600 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 18npWk-0008Ti-00 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 19:34:26 -0500 Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 00:34:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [patch/rfc] gdb.c++/templates.exp, pr gdb/1063 Message-ID: <20030226003426.GA32574@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <20030226001536.GB31684@nevyn.them.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2003-02/txt/msg00681.txt.bz2 On Tue, Feb 25, 2003 at 04:30:29PM -0800, David Carlton wrote: > On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 19:15:36 -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz said: > > > Note that we can't print out the above in stabs or dwarf-2; neither of > > them puts the abstract type in the debug info, only the referenced > > type. DWARF-2 can say a bit more than it does now - specifically, that > > "int" is a template paramater for C - but "DWARF does not represent the > > generic template definition, but does represent each instantiation" > > according to the v3 draft. > > Thanks for the info; I hadn't gotten around to looking at the relevant > parts of the DWARF standard yet. > > > The reason we often print out one of the instantiations is because each > > C contains a nested typedef for C in the DWARF-2. We don't handle > > nested types right yet. > > Ah. Hmm. Why does it contain a nested typedef for C? I guess that > makes sense: 14.6p2 gives an example of how you can use C to refer to > C within the definition of C. > > In that case, I don't think that the desire of the original test case > (i.e. printing out actual template info) is reasonable: it's not the > job of GDB's test suite to lobby for improvements in debugging > formats. So I think the proper behavior is to delete the original > success regexps, to decide that, in this situation, GDB shouldn't > print out any information (which is what currently happens with GCC > 2.95.3/stabs), to KFAIL the situations where it does print out an > instantiation with reference to a PR about nested classes (I assume we > have such a PR, if not I'll create one), and to close PR 1063 with an > appropriate comment. > > How does that sound? Or run the test only for HP, which _does_ have this information. Does any of the code still work? I've got no idea. I only ran the C testsuites on HP/UX, not the C++ ones. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer