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

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

dc> It might be a good idea as part of a larger change (to the names of
dc> all nested classes).  It's probably not a great idea if the change
dc> only involves enums nested with classes, though others might disagree
dc> with me on that.

Ah, I threw a nested class into my little test program.  Its name in the
stabs changed from 'PrivClass' (3.2.3) to 'Outer::PrivClass' (3.3).  So
it's not just enums, it's nice and regular.

dc> What certainly isn't a good idea is that it's changed and nobody has
dc> bothered to discuss this with us.  Maybe a good course of action would
dc> be to post to gcc@ asking about it.

No end to this rabbit hole ...

I am inclined to proceed on the assumption that all gcc 3.X will
be like gcc 3.3 (gcc HEAD certainly is).  Let gcc 3.2 and previous
versions suffer.  Let gcc 2.95.3 suffer, too, although that hurts a bit
more.

I'm neutral on the question of starting a thread in gcc@.

Daniel J, what would you like to do?

Michael C