From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2901 invoked by alias); 24 Jan 2004 14:53:25 -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 2894 invoked from network); 24 Jan 2004 14:53:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 24 Jan 2004 14:53:24 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.30 #1 (Debian)) id 1AkPA4-0005an-FY for ; Sat, 24 Jan 2004 09:53:24 -0500 Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 14:53:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [patch/cp/testsuite] local.exp: update "ptype Local", is now "ptype l" Message-ID: <20040124145324.GA21400@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <20040124072716.E57694B363@berman.michael-chastain.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040124072716.E57694B363@berman.michael-chastain.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2004-01/txt/msg00649.txt.bz2 On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 02:27:16AM -0500, Michael Chastain wrote: > [Sorry David C, I sent this to "redha.com" the first time.] > > This patch updates the "ptype Local" test in gdb.cp/local.exp. > > First, I changed the test from "ptype Local" (a type) to > "ptype l" (a variable of that type). This gives more informative > test output when gdb says that the type of "l" is "Foobar__fi.0::Local". > "ptype Local" just complains about a nonexistent type, but > "ptype l" outputs something specific that I can KFAIL on. I would prefer that you not do this. "ptype l" does give more informative output, precisely because it is an easier problem to solve. By all means add the new "ptype l" test, but please don't remove the existing "ptype Local" test. > Also, overall, I really like my new way of writing these tests, with > re_class, re_fields, re_methods, re_synth. The new code is clear to me. > But I dunno if it's clear to other people or just to me. Thoughts? I rather like it also. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer