From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23169 invoked by alias); 19 Feb 2004 23:29:38 -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 23162 invoked from network); 19 Feb 2004 23:29:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (216.129.200.20) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 19 Feb 2004 23:29:38 -0000 Received: from gnu.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 783A72B92; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 18:29:34 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <403546DE.2030807@gnu.org> Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2004 23:29:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:1.4.1) Gecko/20040217 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Elena Zannoni Cc: Joel Brobecker , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA/dwarf-2] Fix for the null record problem References: <20040219140145.GB804@gnat.com> <16437.11835.435941.553479@localhost.redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <16437.11835.435941.553479@localhost.redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2004-02/txt/msg00547.txt.bz2 > Joel Brobecker writes: > > Hello, > > > > This is a followup on the thread that started with: > > > > http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2004-02/msg00058.html > > > > The test proposed under that thread was dropped because an empty > > struct is not legal C. However, it is legal in Ada, and I've seen > > a message saying that it is also legal in C++. > > > > Let's try the Vulcan mind meld: "We need a gdb.ada directory. We need > a gdb.ada directory. We need a gdb.ada directory. We need a gdb.ada > directory." :-) > > Seriously, I'd like to see a testcase that FAIL->PASS with this patch. > Can somebody get a C++ testcase, at least? > > the patch looks sensible, but I would like to see the testcase go in > at the same time, or we'll forget. A separate struct0 test? If the compile fails, skip it. It doesn't need to be as evil as structs.exp. Andrew