Re: [testsuite/c++] Why is there one fail in demangle.exp?

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com>]

On Tue, Dec 04, 2001 at 03:57:30AM -0600, Michael Elizabeth Chastain wrote:
> The comment above the test is:
> 
> 	## 1999-04-19: "Fix from Dale Hawkins".  Shouldn't segfault.
> 
> This implies to me that an old version of gdb used to segfault on
> that input.
> 
> Note that the release date of gdb-4.18 was 1999-04-09.  So I built one:
> 
>   mec@duracef:/tmp/mec/build$ gdb/gdb
>   GNU gdb 4.18
>   Copyright 1998 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
>   GDB is free software, covered by the GNU General Public License, and you are
>   welcome to change it and/or distribute copies of it under certain conditions.
>   Type "show copying" to see the conditions.
>   There is absolutely no warranty for GDB.  Type "show warranty" for details.
>   This GDB was configured as "i686-pc-linux-gnu".
>   (gdb) maintenance demangle __thunk_64__0RL__list__Q29CosNaming20_proxy_NamingConMtextUlRPt25_CORBA_Unbounded_Sequence1ZQ29CosNaming7BindingRPQ29CosNaming15BindingIterator
>   Segmentation fault (core dumped)
> 
> > I can see that being wrong (_0RL__list as a function name is a little
> > suspicious).  But the test expects "Can't demangle".
> 
> I don't know what the right answer is.  It looks like the intent of the
> test is to check whether the demangler crashes on this input.  It's
> quite possible that the input is purposely malformed.
> 
> I'm inclined to approve both "Can't demangle" and any reasonable
> demangling of the input as PASS, with a comment to the effect that
> gdb 4.18 segfaults on this input.

Dan Berlin commented in a separate message that the string has an
ambiguous meaning in the v2 mangling grammar.  I don't believe that the
FAIL: serves any purpose, though, so I'd like to make it pass but put a
comment to the effect that this isn't 100% accurate.  Patch later.


-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz                           Carnegie Mellon University
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer