From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 108713 invoked by alias); 5 Jun 2015 09:35:34 -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 108421 invoked by uid 89); 5 Jun 2015 09:34:58 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mail-pa0-f48.google.com Received: from mail-pa0-f48.google.com (HELO mail-pa0-f48.google.com) (209.85.220.48) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-GCM-SHA256 encrypted) ESMTPS; Fri, 05 Jun 2015 09:34:57 +0000 Received: by payr10 with SMTP id r10so47561485pay.1 for ; Fri, 05 Jun 2015 02:34:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.68.201.138 with SMTP id ka10mr4663845pbc.6.1433496893355; Fri, 05 Jun 2015 02:34:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from E107787-LIN (gcc1-power7.osuosl.org. [140.211.15.137]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id bn5sm6115536pbc.82.2015.06.05.02.34.50 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 05 Jun 2015 02:34:52 -0700 (PDT) From: Yao Qi To: Jan Kratochvil Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Phil Muldoon Subject: Re: [obv] compile-print.exp: xfail->kfail for '@' GDB array operator References: <20150604193820.GA18453@host1.jankratochvil.net> Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2015 09:35:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20150604193820.GA18453@host1.jankratochvil.net> (Jan Kratochvil's message of "Thu, 4 Jun 2015 21:38:20 +0200") Message-ID: <86d21ao5vw.fsf@gmail.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2015-06/txt/msg00078.txt.bz2 Jan Kratochvil writes: Hi, Jan, This patch isn't obvious to me... see my question below, > Patch implementing '@' GDB array operator in GCC has been rejected: > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-06/msg00414.html > and so there is now a GDB tracker to implement it just in GDB: > https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D18489 If '@' is rejected in GCC, why do we need to support it in "compile" feature in GDB? The manual of command "compile print" says: Compile and execute expr with the compiler language found as the current language in GDB '@' isn't a valid operator for C language, we should emit error here. IMO, "compile" feature should *only* accept valid source code according to the language spec and the compiler. It will be really confusing if we add some other things (like '@' in this case) which is out of the scope of the language. > @@ -38,7 +38,7 @@ gdb_test_multiple $test $test { > pass $test > } > -re ": error: stray '@' in program\r\n.*\r\n$gdb_prompt $" { > - xfail "$test (gcc does not support '@')" > + kfail compile/18489 "$test" > } > } I think xfail is correct as gcc doesn't support '@'. --=20 Yao (=E9=BD=90=E5=B0=A7)