Re: [cplus] An initial use of the canonicalizer

Daniel Jacobowitz
2003-12-31T03:36:40Z

On Tue, Dec 30, 2003 at 09:25:20PM -0500, Michael Chastain wrote:
> 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 "<int,33>" versus "<int, 33>".
> Is "<int,33>" 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
> "<int, ?33>".

That depends on your point of view. It is not a bug in the sense that
it makes sense, means the right thing, will be recognized as user
input, etc. But "<int,33>" is (maybe) uglier, and the point of this
whole rewrite is to make our output _consistent_. 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.