From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 82182 invoked by alias); 22 Apr 2016 11:31:55 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 82167 invoked by uid 89); 22 Apr 2016 11:31:54 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=stds, pollution, assures, evils X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Fri, 22 Apr 2016 11:31:53 +0000 Received: from int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2C6446264A; Fri, 22 Apr 2016 11:31:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id u3MBVoRA007420; Fri, 22 Apr 2016 07:31:51 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 00/11] [PR gdb/14441] Support C++0x rvalue references in gdb To: artemiyv@acm.org References: <1457147955-21871-1-git-send-email-artemiyv@acm.org> <1458593958-25656-1-git-send-email-artemiyv@acm.org> <56FD89F7.1020409@redhat.com> <20160402084706.GD7371@gmail.com> <570402A1.6030600@redhat.com> <20160406083016.GA31849@gmail.com> <570CE0B6.8080707@redhat.com> Cc: Keith Seitz , "gdb-patches@sourceware.org ml" From: Pedro Alves Message-ID: <571A0BA6.5090100@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2016 11:31:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.7.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2016-04/txt/msg00516.txt.bz2 On 04/19/2016 04:51 PM, Artemiy Volkov wrote: > Actually, this pattern has already been introduced: see > gdb.base/nested-subp[1-3].exp and gdb.cp/enum-class.exp. The authors of > these tests hardcoded the standard version in the additional_flags > variable. And I think this is the best way to go here -- IMO the cost of > the implementation you suggested outweighs the benefits. I understand the > idea of having the rvalue ref tests and the corresponding pointer/lvalue > ref tests next to each other, but that would cause too much pollution by > lots of "#ifdef __cplusplus >= ..." and reduced readability. And if we > group the rvalue ref tests together to make it just one #ifdef, why don't > we move those tests out to a separate file in the first place? Alright, that's exactly the thought process that I was expecting. > Also, using > this scheme we would have to create a way to run only specific testcases > twice, which doesn't look like a clean solution, Note we do that in many places, by moving test code to procedures, and then calling the procedure several times. gdb.linespec/ls-errs.exp is one example that tries multiples languages. > or maybe we'd have to run > the whole gdb.cp/* part of testsuite twice which would be unwarranted > waste of time. And people who want to run all of it using C++03 and C++11 > stds can do it by hand. > > So yeah, IMO the least of evils here would be to split rvalue reference > tests to separate files and to hardcode -std=gnu++11 in the .exp files. > This solution is much simpler, it keeps the source files clean, it assures > that each testcase will be run once (which is not a bad thing regarding > the time it takes to run the whole testsuite). > > What do you say? Am I missing something? I say let's do this then. Thanks, Pedro Alves