From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22598 invoked by alias); 26 Feb 2003 02:00:47 -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 22590 invoked from network); 26 Feb 2003 02:00:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO duracef.shout.net) (204.253.184.12) by 172.16.49.205 with SMTP; 26 Feb 2003 02:00:46 -0000 Received: (from mec@localhost) by duracef.shout.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h1Q20h715686; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 20:00:43 -0600 Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 02:00:00 -0000 From: Michael Elizabeth Chastain Message-Id: <200302260200.h1Q20h715686@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/msg00689.txt.bz2 David C writes: > 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. I agree with this philosophy. > 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. Sounds okay. I'll throw away your first patch then and chill out for the second one. Test bed and eyeballs are standing by. :) Michael C