From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2951 invoked by alias); 2 Jul 2003 18:33:05 -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 2942 invoked from network); 2 Jul 2003 18:33:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO crack.them.org) (146.82.138.56) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 2 Jul 2003 18:33:04 -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 19XmQY-0002HR-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 13:33:59 -0500 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 19XmPZ-0002KW-00; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 14:32:57 -0400 Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 18:33:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: David Carlton Cc: Michael Elizabeth Chastain , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [patch/testsuite] gdb.c++/classes.exp: add another ptype pattern Message-ID: <20030702183257.GA8828@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: David Carlton , Michael Elizabeth Chastain , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <200307021649.h62GnKLW026005@duracef.shout.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2003-07/txt/msg00044.txt.bz2 On Wed, Jul 02, 2003 at 10:07:53AM -0700, David Carlton wrote: > On Wed, 2 Jul 2003 12:49:20 -0400, Michael Elizabeth Chastain said: > > > The big stab for ClassWithEnum is the same, but the stab for the > > nested enum changed from 'PrivEnum' to 'ClassWithEnum::PrivEnum'. > > The hypothetical case has came to life. Argh! > > > Is it good for us that gcc 3.3 and later versions output > > 'ClassWithEnum::PrivEnum'? Or should I file a bug report against > > gcc and ask them to put it back to just plain 'PrivEnum'? > > It might be a good idea as part of a larger change (to the names of > all nested classes). It's probably not a great idea if the change > only involves enums nested with classes, though others might disagree > with me on that. > > What certainly isn't a good idea is that it's changed and nobody has > bothered to discuss this with us. Maybe a good course of action would > be to post to gcc@ asking about it. Eh, I believe Kevin B. did it: 2002-05-22 Kevin Buettner * dbxout.c (dbxout_class_name_qualifiers): New function. (dbxout_symbol): Output class/struct qualifiers for a .stabs entry. Ask him about it instead of blaming GCC... -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer