From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1302 invoked by alias); 26 Feb 2003 01:15:26 -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 1289 invoked from network); 26 Feb 2003 01:15:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO duracef.shout.net) (204.253.184.12) by 172.16.49.205 with SMTP; 26 Feb 2003 01:15:26 -0000 Received: (from mec@localhost) by duracef.shout.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h1Q1FNl15043; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 19:15:23 -0600 Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 01:15:00 -0000 From: Michael Elizabeth Chastain Message-Id: <200302260115.h1Q1FNl15043@duracef.shout.net> To: carlton@math.stanford.edu, drow@mvista.com Subject: Re: [patch/rfc] gdb.c++/templates.exp, pr gdb/1063 Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com X-SW-Source: 2003-02/txt/msg00684.txt.bz2 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