Re: [patch/testsuite] gdb.c++/classes.exp: add another ptype pattern

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

dc> Sigh.  Do the GCC stabs maintainers just randomly change their output
dc> to keep us on our toes, or what?

Something like that.  :)

Ha!  And they LAUGHED when I kept both 3.2.3 and 3.3 in my test bed!  :)

dc> # NOTE: carlton/2003-07-02: Currently, this test only passes with GCC
dc> # 3.3 and higher and with -gstabs+, and it only passes in those
dc> # situations by accident.

Ummm, could you explain the accident more?

There's already KFAIL on the naked 'PrivEnum' because gdb prints it for
a "bad reason".  But if gdb prints 'ClassWithEnum::PrivEnum' then you
say it's by accident.  It's like there is nothing gdb to can do to avoid
scolding by the test script.

This is getting too far away from my vision of a test suite, which is
that it defines the legal output for a PASS, and then KFAIL's and
XFAIL's other cases that we understand, and then FAIL's everything else.

In the long run, should 'class ClassWithEnum { PrivEnum ...}' be a PASS?
In the long run, should 'class ClassWithEnum { ClassWithEnum::PrivEnum ...}'
be a PASS?

That would help me sort this out.

Michael C