From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22336 invoked by alias); 2 Jul 2003 15:52:10 -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 22320 invoked from network); 2 Jul 2003 15:52:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hawaii.kealia.com) (216.101.126.244) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 2 Jul 2003 15:52:09 -0000 Received: by hawaii.kealia.com (Postfix, from userid 2049) id F3661BF06; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 08:52:08 -0700 (PDT) To: Michael Elizabeth Chastain Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [patch/testsuite] gdb.c++/classes.exp: add another ptype pattern References: <200307021539.h62FdJWR025063@duracef.shout.net> From: David Carlton Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 15:52:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <200307021539.h62FdJWR025063@duracef.shout.net> (Michael Elizabeth Chastain's message of "Wed, 2 Jul 2003 11:39:19 -0400") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.1002 (Gnus v5.10.2) XEmacs/21.4 (Rational FORTRAN, linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2003-07/txt/msg00031.txt.bz2 On Wed, 2 Jul 2003 11:39:19 -0400, Michael Elizabeth Chastain said: > # gcc 3.3 -gstabs+ > # gcc gcc-3_3-branch -gstabs+ > # gcc HEAD -gstabs+ > ptype obj_with_enum > type = class ClassWithEnum { > public: > ClassWithEnum::PrivEnum priv_enum; > int x; > ClassWithEnum & operator=(ClassWithEnum const&); > ClassWithEnum(ClassWithEnum const&); > ClassWithEnum(); > } > (gdb) FAIL: gdb.c++/classes.exp: ptype obj_with_enum Sigh. Do the GCC stabs maintainers just randomly change their output to keep us on our toes, or what? Maybe I shouldn't be annoyed, given that that output is actually what we (eventually) _want_ GDB to be producing, but if we want stabs debugging to work well, we need to sit down and figure out what names stabs should list for various types, and we need GCC to stick with whatever that decision might be. I'm happy enough with your patch, but I'd prefer a comment at the beginning of the test noting that it only passes by accident: something like # NOTE: carlton/2003-07-02: Currently, this test only passes with GCC # 3.3 and higher and with -gstabs+, and it only passes in those # situations by accident. David Carlton carlton@kealia.com