From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6989 invoked by alias); 1 Apr 2011 16:09:27 -0000 Received: (qmail 6910 invoked by uid 22791); 1 Apr 2011 16:09:25 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (38.113.113.100) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 01 Apr 2011 16:09:21 +0000 Received: (qmail 4097 invoked from network); 1 Apr 2011 16:09:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO scottsdale.localnet) (pedro@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 1 Apr 2011 16:09:21 -0000 From: Pedro Alves To: Keith Seitz Subject: Re: FAIL: gdb.cp/cpexprs.exp: list base::overload(void) Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2011 16:09:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.5 (Linux/2.6.35-28-generic; KDE/4.6.1; x86_64; ; ) Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <201104011609.07889.pedro@codesourcery.com> <4D95F4FA.9080508@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <4D95F4FA.9080508@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201104011709.18693.pedro@codesourcery.com> X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2011-04/txt/msg00011.txt.bz2 On Friday 01 April 2011 16:53:30, Keith Seitz wrote: > On 04/01/2011 08:09 AM, Pedro Alves wrote: > >> # Overloaded methods (all are const -- we try to use the void > >> # method with and without specifying "const") > > > > Why is the non-const variant tried and expected to pass? > > Yes, as you say: > > > Is this trying to be a reminder that GDB could be more forgiving > > and accept the non-const overload, perhaps? > > I wouldn't go so far as to say that gdb needs to be forgiving. This case > is unambiguous, and IMO it is simply a bug/mis-feature. I put those > tests there as a reminder that someone needs to figure out how to fix > this... But: > > > Can we just drop it, like below? > > Perhaps it would have been better to either XFAIL (a KFAIL) > or remove them altogether and add a bugzilla entry to track this. Yeah, I'll do this. Thanks! -- Pedro Alves