From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3925 invoked by alias); 31 Dec 2003 14:04:21 -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 3879 invoked from network); 31 Dec 2003 14:04:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 31 Dec 2003 14:04:20 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.30 #1 (Debian)) id 1AbgxQ-00088Z-0S; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 09:04:20 -0500 Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 14:04:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Michael Elizabeth Chastain Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [cplus] An initial use of the canonicalizer Message-ID: <20031231140419.GA31238@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Michael Elizabeth Chastain , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <20031231041140.CE4984B35A@berman.michael-chastain.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20031231041140.CE4984B35A@berman.michael-chastain.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2003-12/txt/msg00532.txt.bz2 On Tue, Dec 30, 2003 at 11:11:40PM -0500, Michael Chastain wrote: > > So if we're printing somewhere and somewhere else, > > that will be a bug. So I'd write all the tests to match only. > > > > That's the theory I'm going by at the moment at least. > > That's a point in favor of accepting only "". > > 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 > "", even though it fuzzes the test a little. > > So I guess we're in disagreement here. As I said, the choices are: - Being able to test vs. 6.1 - Being able to verify that our output is consistently formatted I guess I'll go with (A) until after the next GDB release and then clean up any remaining formatting problems. This makes the testsuite less useful for my development so I'll probably do (B) in drow-cplus-branch. > 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! It can't be fixed. I spent a miserable long time last year trying. There's not enough information to figure out whether the constructor is explicit or implicit. Just write out the operators inside ()? instead, in the testcase. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer