From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21810 invoked by alias); 2 Jul 2003 15:51:04 -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 21802 invoked from network); 2 Jul 2003 15:51:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO crack.them.org) (146.82.138.56) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 2 Jul 2003 15:51:03 -0000 Received: from dsl093-172-017.pit1.dsl.speakeasy.net ([66.93.172.17] helo=nevyn.them.org ident=mail) by crack.them.org with asmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 19Xjta-0001xu-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 10:51:46 -0500 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 19Xjsb-0000yI-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 11:50:45 -0400 Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 15:51:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Michael Elizabeth Chastain Cc: carlton@kealia.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [patch/testsuite] gdb.c++/classes.exp: add another ptype pattern Message-ID: <20030702155044.GA3630@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Michael Elizabeth Chastain , carlton@kealia.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <200307021539.h62FdJWR025063@duracef.shout.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200307021539.h62FdJWR025063@duracef.shout.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2003-07/txt/msg00030.txt.bz2 On Wed, Jul 02, 2003 at 11:39:19AM -0400, Michael Elizabeth Chastain wrote: > This patch adds a pattern to a ptype test in classes.exp. > > Here is the story. The class is: > > class ClassWithEnum { > public: > enum PrivEnum { red, green, blue, yellow = 42 }; > PrivEnum priv_enum; > int x; > }; > My concern is gcc 3.3 -gstabs+. gdb is printing the right output, but > there is no arm in the test case for it, so it FAILed. This patch adds > an arm so that this output will now PASS. Could you try adding the .* from the following (kfail) pattern instead? I.E. right after "int x;". We'll have to revisit this someday. Eventually, I want that KFAIL'ing pattern to be the correct output. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer