From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5631 invoked by alias); 2 Jul 2003 16:09:38 -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 5613 invoked from network); 2 Jul 2003 16:09:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO concert.shout.net) (204.253.184.25) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 2 Jul 2003 16:09:37 -0000 Received: from duracef.shout.net (duracef.shout.net [204.253.184.12]) by concert.shout.net (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h62G9YEb004500; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 11:09:34 -0500 Received: from duracef.shout.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by duracef.shout.net (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h62G9YHK025487; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 11:09:34 -0500 Received: (from mec@localhost) by duracef.shout.net (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h62G9XaE025486; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 12:09:33 -0400 Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 16:09:00 -0000 From: Michael Elizabeth Chastain Message-Id: <200307021609.h62G9XaE025486@duracef.shout.net> To: carlton@kealia.com Subject: Re: [patch/testsuite] gdb.c++/classes.exp: add another ptype pattern Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com X-SW-Source: 2003-07/txt/msg00033.txt.bz2 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