From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-return-12829-listarch-gdb=sources.redhat.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 13757 invoked by alias); 28 Feb 2003 01:30:17 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-subscribe@sources.redhat.com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb@sources.redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-help@sources.redhat.com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com
Received: (qmail 13750 invoked from network); 28 Feb 2003 01:30:17 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO crack.them.org) (65.125.64.184)
  by 172.16.49.205 with SMTP; 28 Feb 2003 01:30:17 -0000
Received: from nevyn.them.org ([66.93.61.169] ident=mail)
	by crack.them.org with asmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian))
	id 18obF7-0004vS-00; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 21:31:25 -0600
Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian))
	id 18oZLp-0005Qs-00; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 20:30:13 -0500
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 01:30:00 -0000
From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com>
To: David Carlton <carlton@math.stanford.edu>
Cc: gdb <gdb@sources.redhat.com>,
	Michael Elizabeth Chastain <mec@shout.net>
Subject: Re: [rfc] xfailed tests in gdb.c++/classes.exp
Message-ID: <20030228013013.GA20822@nevyn.them.org>
Mail-Followup-To: David Carlton <carlton@math.stanford.edu>,
	gdb <gdb@sources.redhat.com>,
	Michael Elizabeth Chastain <mec@shout.net>
References: <ro18yy1lub7.fsf@jackfruit.Stanford.EDU>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <ro18yy1lub7.fsf@jackfruit.Stanford.EDU>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i
X-SW-Source: 2003-02/txt/msg00602.txt.bz2

Sorry for losing this message (again).

On Fri, Jan 03, 2003 at 02:53:00PM -0800, David Carlton wrote:
> I've been looking at the xfailed tests in gdb.c++/classes.exp, and
> some of the xfails aren't too convincing.  Specifically, the tests
> that I'm looking at do ptypes of C++ data structures, and several of
> the xfails fall into one or both of these categories:
> 
> 1) GDB prints "class X { public: ... }" when the programmer originally
>    wrote "struct X { ... }".

Hmm, this should definitely be eiter a pass or an XFAIL.  If you want
to let it pass, I'm fine with that decision.

> 2) GDB prints "class X { private: int x; ... }" when the programmer
>    originally wrote "class X { int x; ... }".

This should either be a PASS or be corrected.  Do you think that it's
more logical to print it as above or should we just elide the private?

I think we have already got logic to do this, so it might be an
outright bug that we don't.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer