Re: gdb.c++ failures

[Michael Elizabeth Chastain <mec@shout.net>]

Jason Merrill writes:

>  classes.exp: dwarf2 doesn't provide mangled names for abstract
>   constructors, and there is a difference of opinion between the
>   demangler and c-typeprint.c as to whether the type should be written "A
>   const &" or "const A &".  The demangler always puts the cv-qualifier
>   after the type it affects, whereas gdb puts it in front whenever that
>   would have the correct meaning.  Either one could be changed to match
>   the other, or the testcase could be modified to accept either form.
>   Thoughts?

I'm in favor of changing the test suite to accept either "A const &"
or "const A &".

>   method.exp: The 'print this' tests are failing because gdb is printing
>    the types as, say, (A * const), and the test just wants (A *).  The
>    former is correct, since 'this' is readonly.  Any objection to changing
>    the test (and others affected) to allow the const?

Fred Fish submitted a patch for this.  There is a second issue in the
patch about the type of "this" in const methods.  The type should be
"const A *", and I would be willing to accept "const A * const".
But gdb with stabs is printing just plain "A *".

On the question of accepting "A * const" as the type of "this",
I'm in favor of allowing that.

>  templates.exp:
>    Also, the cv-qual placement issue breaks 'print Foo<volatile char *>::foo';
>    it needs to be 'print "Foo<char volatile*>::foo"' to match the demangler
>    output.  I take it the aCC demangler makes different choices?  I don't
>    see any way to get around the dependence of template naming on the
>    canonical format chosen by the demangler unless gdb learns to mangle
>    names itself; perhaps the syntax of the test should vary with the compiler.

The test script could probe the demangler and then provide whatever
input gdb is using that day.  See gdb.c++/cplusfuncs.exp probe_demangler
for an example.

Michael C