From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22956 invoked by alias); 2 Jul 2003 17:28:25 -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 22947 invoked from network); 2 Jul 2003 17:28:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO concert.shout.net) (204.253.184.25) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 2 Jul 2003 17:28:25 -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 h62HSNEb018062; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 12:28:23 -0500 Received: from duracef.shout.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by duracef.shout.net (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h62HSNHK026491; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 12:28:23 -0500 Received: (from mec@localhost) by duracef.shout.net (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h62HSNw7026490; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 13:28:23 -0400 Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 17:28:00 -0000 From: Michael Elizabeth Chastain Message-Id: <200307021728.h62HSNw7026490@duracef.shout.net> To: carlton@kealia.com, drow@mvista.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/msg00040.txt.bz2 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