From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-29500-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 16989 invoked by alias); 31 Dec 2003 04:12:01 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sources.redhat.com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com
Received: (qmail 16977 invoked from network); 31 Dec 2003 04:12:01 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO smtp10.atl.mindspring.net) (207.69.200.246)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 31 Dec 2003 04:12:01 -0000
Received: from user-119a90a.biz.mindspring.com ([66.149.36.10] helo=berman.michael-chastain.com)
	by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1)
	id 1AbXhj-0001h6-00; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 23:11:31 -0500
Received: by berman.michael-chastain.com (Postfix, from userid 502)
	id CE4984B35A; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 23:11:40 -0500 (EST)
To: drow@mvista.com
Subject: Re: [cplus] An initial use of the canonicalizer
Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Message-Id: <20031231041140.CE4984B35A@berman.michael-chastain.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 04:12:00 -0000
From: mec.gnu@mindspring.com (Michael Elizabeth Chastain)
X-SW-Source: 2003-12/txt/msg00529.txt.bz2

> So if we're printing <int, 33> somewhere and <int,33> somewhere else,
> that will be a bug.  So I'd write all the tests to match <int, 33> only.
>
> That's the theory I'm going by at the moment at least.

That's a point in favor of accepting only "<int,33>".

However, I'm going to need to check gdb 6.0 against gdb-6_1-branch
eventually.  It will help if I can run some of the same test scripts
from gdb-6_1-branch to check for regressions.  That's why I want
"<int, ?33>", even though it fuzzes the test a little.

So I guess we're in disagreement here.

And man is there a mountain of much worse problems in gdb.cp/*.exp
right now.  I'm checking classes.exp and it's full of stuff like:

  "int i;{$ws};int j;.*\}\n$gdb_prompt$ "

Can you do anything about this:

  (gdb) ptype class whatever
  type = class whatever {
    public:
      int i;
      int j;

    public:
      whatever & operator=(whatever const &);
      whatever(whatever const &);
      whatever();
  }

The implicit functions appear with -gstabs+ and do not appear
with -gdwarf-2.  This causes either a whole lot of extra pattern
lines or a lot of "int j;.*\}".  I have low tolerance for ".*"
in a test pattern!

Michael C