From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18791 invoked by alias); 31 Dec 2003 02:26:39 -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 18763 invoked from network); 31 Dec 2003 02:26:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hall.mail.mindspring.net) (207.69.200.60) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 31 Dec 2003 02:26:34 -0000 Received: from user-119a90a.biz.mindspring.com ([66.149.36.10] helo=berman.michael-chastain.com) by hall.mail.mindspring.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 1AbW2w-0000kX-00; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 21:25:18 -0500 Received: by berman.michael-chastain.com (Postfix, from userid 502) id 77EC84B35A; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 21:25:20 -0500 (EST) To: drow@mvista.com Subject: Re: [cplus] An initial use of the canonicalizer Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Message-Id: <20031231022520.77EC84B35A@berman.michael-chastain.com> Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 02:26:00 -0000 From: mec.gnu@mindspring.com (Michael Elizabeth Chastain) X-SW-Source: 2003-12/txt/msg00527.txt.bz2 mec> So there used to be a volatile required, but now there is none. mec> That's the part I don't like. drow> That's the part that will be going away when I have more time. I'm drow> going to stabilize the output first, and tighten up the testcases one drow> test at a time second; too many changes, otherwise. Yes, I'm sorry -- I shouldn't jump on your back about this. (I'm having a bad day with gdb.cp already). drow> So you're OK if I make these tests fail when run against GDB 6.0? drow> I'm a little confused by your response. I'm okay with the idea of accepting only "char volatile*", or whichever flavor you land on. When I run that test script against gdb 6.0, it will FAIL with gdb 6.0 and PASS with gdb HEAD. I can handle that. To look at it another way, I'm okay whenever the test suite gets more stringent and stuff that used to PASS (but shouldn't) now FAILs. And other people won't notice a problem as long as gdb is fixed before the test suite is improved. A question about the "" versus "". Is "" a bug? I don't consider it a bug, so it would bother me if that started FAILing. That's why I want the pattern to be "". Michael C