From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8329 invoked by alias); 2 Jul 2003 21:33:31 -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 8297 invoked from network); 2 Jul 2003 21:33:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO concert.shout.net) (204.253.184.25) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 2 Jul 2003 21:33:30 -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 h62LXPEb027955; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 16:33:25 -0500 Received: from duracef.shout.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by duracef.shout.net (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h62LXPHK029852; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 16:33:25 -0500 Received: (from mec@localhost) by duracef.shout.net (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h62LXPPZ029851; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 17:33:25 -0400 Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 21:33:00 -0000 From: Michael Elizabeth Chastain Message-Id: <200307022133.h62LXPPZ029851@duracef.shout.net> To: carlton@kealia.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, mec@shout.net Subject: Re: [patch/testsuite] gdb.c++/classes.exp: add another ptype pattern Cc: drow@mvista.com, kevinb@redhat.com X-SW-Source: 2003-07/txt/msg00061.txt.bz2 Okay, here's my understanding: . as of gcc 3.3, enums and classes which are nested in other classes now have a stab name such as "ClassWithEnum::PrivEnum" rather than just "PrivEnum". . this is intentional . this is a good thing -- drow mentioned it at one point and carlton likes it too. . as of gcc 3.3, enums and classes which are nested in namespaces still have stab names such as "PrivEnum". . there's still work to do in gdb. . ... so it's hard to write a test case. I'm going to leave inherit.exp alone and withdraw my patch. This will leave the gcc 3.3 -gstabs+ case with a FAIL, which is okay. Someone will pick it up again later when they get to the work in gdb. I'm satisfied that the change from gcc 3.2.3 to gcc 3.3 is a good change. So I can proceed down my list of "regressions with gcc 3.3 versus gcc 3.2.3". When I get to the bottom of that list, I can drop test coverage of gcc 3.2.3. Michael C