From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31157 invoked by alias); 1 Apr 2011 15:53:48 -0000 Received: (qmail 31146 invoked by uid 22791); 1 Apr 2011 15:53:47 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-5.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 01 Apr 2011 15:53:41 +0000 Received: from int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.25]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p31FrXSR017944 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 1 Apr 2011 11:53:33 -0400 Received: from valrhona.uglyboxes.com (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p31FrU8Z008577 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 1 Apr 2011 11:53:32 -0400 Message-ID: <4D95F4FA.9080508@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2011 15:53:00 -0000 From: Keith Seitz User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110307 Fedora/3.1.9-0.38.b3pre.fc13 Lightning/1.0b3pre Thunderbird/3.1.9 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Pedro Alves CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: FAIL: gdb.cp/cpexprs.exp: list base::overload(void) References: <201104011609.07889.pedro@codesourcery.com> In-Reply-To: <201104011609.07889.pedro@codesourcery.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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/msg00010.txt.bz2 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 or remove them altogether and add a bugzilla entry to track this. I was hoping to get to it, but as it turned out, there were "bigger fish to fry. :-( Keith