Re: [patch/rfc] gdb.c++/templates.exp, pr gdb/1063

[Michael Elizabeth Chastain <mec@shout.net>]

David C writes:

> Hmm.  I guess, for now, just leaving the HP regexps in place is
> correct.

That sounds good to me.

I have heard that HP has a new compiler which follows the multi-vendor
standard C++ ABI.  In my dreams, that means that the gcc v3 code will
work with that new compiler.

At some point we'll have to face the HP music.

> So my current plan is to leave the HP regexps (but add a comment), to
> PASS the case where GDB can't print out the type info, to KFAIL the
> case where GDB incorrectly prints out one of the specializations (with
> reference to a nested types PR), and to close PR gdb/1063 (with an
> appropriate comment).  How does that sound?

Again that sounds good to me.

The old style was to use gdb_test as much as possible.  But I actually
like this new multi-armed gdb_expect style.  Maybe when things calm down
we can move to Daniel's new gdb_test_multiple, too.

I'll be reviewing the patch later this evening after I re-do my
HAVE_UINTPTR_T patch.

Michael C